|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 11/21/2010 : 14:08:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dude
Dismising untestable claims as nonsense is absolutely a part of the scientific method. |
Not if science is defined in part by starting with only that which is testable, which is where people who want to stay away from religion begin. "Scientific skepticism" is obviously applying skeptical methods only to that which is potentially falsifiable through empirical testing. Untestable claims then fall outside of what it can possibly probe.| If it weren't then we'd spend eternity pondering the literally infinite number of untestable claims it is possible to make. IPU, FSM, and gravity fairies... |
That's what Occam's Razor is actually for: figuring out the least complicated path(s) to good future results. It gets used in step 2 of the classic "scientific method" (formulate a testable hypothesis to explain your observation), but isn't synonymous with science or skepticism (or "scientific skepticism").
|
It's ludicrous to suggest that determining testability is not a part of the scientific method. Quite often this may not seem like a part if science because so many claims are self evidently untestable. It is equally ludicrous to suggest that the rejection of untestable claims isn't a part of the method. How would you know what to test or not? |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 17:13:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Perhaps a distinction should be made about what is "skepticism" and what is "skeptical rationalism."
|
Indeed within the real of philosophy known as epistemology (the study of knowledge for short) there are competing schools.
This is where I and many philosophical agnostics (derided and divided by the atheists among the skeptics almost as much as the religious are) set down. We fall just shy of Radical Skepticisms like Post Modernism, but do state that knowledge can not be gained with any certitude, that all human knowledge is at best incomplete, approximate and volatile. Oddly we have evidence on our side, and this is specifically the knowledge both Empiricism and Rationalism support.
I'll say it again. If you have arrived at your philosophy (be it empiricism, skepticism atheism what not) without doing the rigorous work of understanding the underlying philosophy (especially the epistemology) you are at least part fraud. And certainly taking your knowledge on faith.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 17:14:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
And a concern that rationalism has the potential to erode the term "skeptic" when it's meant as scientific skepticism by one group of skeptics and "rational skepticism" by another is therefore understandable. |
Sure, it's understandable. But it's still wrong to try to own the broader term for one's preferred sub-set. That's why I'm not making a counter-call for CSI to be renamed as the "Committee for Scientific Skeptical Investigation." The fact that they have a narrow focus does not "dilute" the general skeptical movement at all, but they seem annoyed that some people hear the word "skeptic" and don't think of them and only them. That'd be founder's pride, if that's what's happening.
Or perhaps, deep down, it's all about money. The more skeptics' groups there are, the less CSI, JREF and other "classic" groups will receive, as the contributions to the groups become "diluted." I used to think that way about psoriasis groups: why would anyone even think to start another psoriasis foundation in the US (much less donate to one) when the National Psoriasis Foundation needs all the donations it can get? The answer eventually dawned on me: because those other groups will have different outlooks and missions, which may get people involved who wouldn't have donated to the core group, anyway.
Whether it's founder's pride or economic woes or something else entirely, it still seems pretty silly (even if understandable).
...
Another comment to Wagg's complaint has brought a new perspective on this for me. The commenter says that the conflation of atheism and skepticism means that there will be people who think they're skeptics when really, they're just atheists. Well, duh, there will always be people who think they're skeptics when they're not, including most AGW deniers and 9/11 Truthers. That's what education is for: for fixing such problems by showing people what skepticism is.
JT certainly isn't promoting such sloppy thinking with his repeated "skepticism leads to atheism." If anyone is running around the convention thinking that because they're an atheist, that means they must have come by their atheism through skepticism, they're sadly deluded, and there were 1,799 others there to set them right. And any atheistic bigfoot believers at Skepticon III who let the cat out of the bag were probably given quite a lot to think about, bigfoot-wise, even if that wasn't the "theme" of the con. I certainly doubt (by the titles of the talks alone) that the con was nothing more than an atheistic pep rally.
...
Edited to add that Hal Bidlack showed up in the comments today, too, apparently to martyr himself by building a straw man out of PZ's words, putting a sword in its carefully crafted hand and then running at it while tooting his own horn about bomb detectors in Iraq. My respect for him just went down a few notches. If anything, it's that sort of manufactured outrage that will destroy skepticism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 17:18:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
It's ludicrous to suggest that determining testability is not a part of the scientific method. Quite often this may not seem like a part if science because so many claims are self evidently untestable. It is equally ludicrous to suggest that the rejection of untestable claims isn't a part of the method. How would you know what to test or not? |
A good question for those who think that skepticism and science are the same thing, and that neither can touch the untestable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 21:10:21 [Permalink]
|
chef said:
I'll say it again. If you have arrived at your philosophy (be it empiricism, skepticism atheism what not) without doing the rigorous work of understanding the underlying philosophy (especially the epistemology) you are at least part fraud. And certainly taking your knowledge on faith.
|
At the most basic level all knowledge rests on assumptions, rendering all theories of epistemology equally useless.
Pragmatism is the only real option, and everyone (if they admit it or not) is a pragmatist when in counts.
I'm sure that will offend people who have spent a great deal more time studying the topic of epistemology than I have, but if I am wrong then this is all happening inside my head anyway, and I don't really give a fuck if I happen to piss myself off!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 21:48:02 [Permalink]
|
A discussion at Pharyngula reminded me of Pamela Gay, a theistic skeptic who lectured at TAM 8. Here is the very first question from JREF's interview of her: SWIFT: How can you be a skeptic and a theist at the same time?
Pamela Gay: To me, skepticism applies to testable parts of my life. Through science, I can test ideas and make predictions. As a skeptical thinker, when I'm confronted with data I have to be willing to change my ideas about reality, and if the predictive powers of science fail me, I have to admit my science is wrong. A belief in God is a belief in something frustratingly untestable. I can make no testable predictions using religion, but instead find myself faced with having to make an opinion-based judgement. I have made the choice to believe. I admit I have doubts - I am not so strong a person as to say my faith is complete and that in the dark of night I don't worry that I'm wrong. But in the absence of data, I have made the choice to believe in a God. |
Skipping over the questionable assertion that religion makes "no testable predictions," Gay clearly subscribes to what's being called "scientific skepticism," which to me just sounds like plain old science. True, certain ideologues may reject the conclusions of science or ignore plain facts, but I don't see how a willingness to form beliefs based upon evidence alone counts as "skepticism." That's just basic sanity. It seems to me that the benefit of skepticism, if it is to have any independent value at all, lies in weighing claims against evidence. And as we all know, the more extraordinary the claim, the greater the need for evidence. It seems self-evident to me that skepticism would exclude belief in any claim that has no evidence--and whether that's because the claim is fundamentally untestable or not seems irrelevant, since any claim can be made "untestable" by piling up enough ad hoc conditionals.
So Pamela Gay's "skepticism" seems to boil down to "evidence is nice for making judgments when you want it to be, but if you have a particular belief you don't feel like discarding just make up reasons why it can't be adequately tested and you're free to keep it."
Is that skepticism as the members here understand and practice it?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/21/2010 23:12:36 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 22:30:04 [Permalink]
|
Let me try this from another direction. Humbert. Would you say that Pamala Gay is not reasonable or rational enough, even though she holds a belief that neither of us agrees with, to be considered a skeptic, at last in areas outside of religion? Or does her theism pretty much mean that we can't reasonably call her a skeptic?
By the way, the interview was done by DJ Grothe. President of the JREF. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 22:30:31 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, I went back and added it later.
About her belief. Aside from her doubt, which she admits to having, even though she keeps her belief, what test about her admitted theism is available to her?
|
I think the more relevant question for any skeptic should be, "what evidence is available?" As I've already said, I don't think "testability" is a useful metric, since any claim can be made untestable.
- Prayer works! (except when tested)
- Homeopathy works! (except when tested)
- Bigfoot exists! (there's just no evidence that he does)
- God exists! (there's just no evidence that he does)
Explain how any consistent skeptic could be justified in treating these claims fundamentally different from each other.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/21/2010 23:20:12 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 22:37:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Let me try this from another direction. Humbert. Would you say that Pamala Gay is not reasonable or rational enough, even though she holds a belief that neither of us agrees with, to be considered a skeptic, at last in areas outside of religion? Or does her theism pretty much mean she isn't a skeptic?
|
I don't know why you keep encouraging me to make a black and white judgment on who is or isn't a "true skeptic," but I suspect it's because that's the position you'd prefer to argue against. I've said before that people are rarely entirely consistent in their beliefs. It's possible to be skeptical about one subject and credulous about another. But if you're asking me whether I think theism is consistent with skepticism, then the answer is no.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/21/2010 22:38:59 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 22:43:43 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
I don't know why you keep encouraging me to make a black and white judgment on who is or isn't a "true skeptic," but I suspect it's because that's the position you'd prefer to argue against. I've said before that people are rarely entirely consistent in their beliefs. It's possible to be skeptical about one subject and credulous about another. But if you're asking me whether I think theism is consistent with skepticism, then the answer is no. |
I asked because you brought up Pamala Gay and the Swift interview with DJ Grothe in this thread and I'm trying to figure out why?
Where else did I encourage you to make a black and white judgment about who is or isn't a "true skeptic?" I'd like to know that too. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 22:55:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I asked because you brought up Pamala Gay and the Swift interview with DJ Grothe in this thread and I'm trying to figure out why?
|
Because so far we've been largely talking about atheists who have a vague, as-yet-unsupported complaint that some skeptical gatherings have become too "athy." Jeff Wagg is an atheist who nevertheless believes skepticism should be restricted to scientific skepticism. Pamala Gay is of interest because she's a theist who's also an outspoken scientific skeptic, thus embodying exactly what Wagg advocates. And so I thought it would be worthwhile to ask the members here if Gay is practicing skepticism as the members here understand and practice it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 22:56:25 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert quoted Pamela Gay
But in the absence of data, I have made the choice to believe in a God. |
So given the complete absence of data about the proverbial invisible pink unicorns, it's acceptable to believe in them? Holy fuck.Originally posted by H. Humbert
Is that skepticism as the members here understand and practice it? |
Hell, no.Originally posted by Kil
About her belief. Aside from her doubt, which she admits to having, even though she keeps her belief, what test about her admitted theism is available to her? |
How about "if there's no evidence whatsoever to support some proposition, that's reason enough to withhold belief." That is, after all, the standard to which scientific skeptics hold themselves when data is available. We've been trained by decades of "the skeptical project" to not say that testable claims are definitively false, but instead to simply withhold belief when evidence fails to support them.
Apparently, for some people, when testability is missing, that standard just flies out the window. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 23:08:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Where else did I encourage you to make a black and white judgment about who is or isn't a "true skeptic?" I'd like to know that too.
|
From the beginning Wagg and you have expressed concern that outspoken atheists are trying to conflate atheism with skepticism, and thus by extension kick theists out of the "skeptic's club." To this point in time, however, I haven't seen anything that would justify such fears. You asking me to make a judgment on whether Gay should be considered a "true skeptic" would accomplish nothing except to give you an opportunity to turn my words against me and suggest that I do in fact want to kick theists out of the skeptic's club, something which I've repeatedly stated I have no interest in doing. I said as much in my first post in this thread:| I'm not going to force anyone to renounce certain beliefs (as if I could) before granting them the status of "skeptic" (as if anyone is the bestower of that title) |
So you were asking me to do something which I had already explicitly stated I wasn't going to do. I sensed a trap. Sorry if I misread your intentions.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/21/2010 23:11:30 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Too many atheists?
