|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/17/2011 : 09:59:28 [Permalink]
|
| And is there any particular reason why you are calling her "Babs?" I didn't know that you knew her, if that's the reason. |
Because I'm an ass, .... and I keep misspelling Barbara when I type it. I mean, every time I type it I screw it up. It comes out "Brabara".... 
What parts do I agree with? These:
In my opinion, the tone and scope arguments dance around a bigger problem and I do not believe that we can afford to ignore the elephants in the room any longer. We should not give people ‘a pass’ simply because they claim to be on our side.
|
No one gets a free pass. Ever.
Arrogance and ignorance, along with some shallow thinking, need only a cause to produce mob behavior. Opinions become stronger, more polarized, and more emotionally-laden they are spewed by overconfident people with an audience. When groupthink grows, hate often grows with it.
|
Probably true. Ignorance is ugly, especially the willful kind.
I agree with her general statements about intolerance, we have no business setting up religious people as an out group to be the target of general ridicule and anger. As Dawkins has said many times, ridicule the beliefs not the believer (I modify that and say its ok to ridicule the believer when they prove to be willfully ignorant). I agree with her objection to anti-intellectualism, there is no place for it in the human race, let alone skepticism.
I also disagree with a lot of what she has to say.
Only if you add the word "formal," which you just did.
|
Well, no. Did you read all of the parts to her essay? In part three, at the end, she basically says that if you aren't a scientist then you should shut the fuck up or go home.
The definitions of science and scientific skepticism were arrived at through centuries of study, collaboration, contemplation, and discussion. They are not negotiable, at least not without agreement from a vast majority of scientists. If you cannot accept these definitions as they are, you have three choices:
1. Publish your opinions in peer-reviewed journals and hope that philosophers and scientists agree with you.
2. Keep arguing about it with Skeptics and impede our progress.
3. Go do something else.
|
As I read that again I am struck by a sense of hypocrisy. She is down on atheists for telling religious people to change their ways or get out, but here she is telling atheists exactly that.
|
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 - 08/17/2011 : 12:42:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
The problem that some of us see is the conflation of rationalism with empiricism. The conflation of distinctly different epistemologies. In modern times, empiricism has been the method that skeptics have used. Skepticism, the brand, has been science based. It’s not that skeptics aren’t rationalists also, but they kept the kinds of conclusions that can be made using those methods separate. |
What is the reason for keeping empiricism unattached to rationalism and what makes their conflation problematic?
I want to write a long post when I have the time, but unfortunately work keeps interfering. But rest assured I'm not asking these questions just to waste your time.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2011 : 13:16:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Kil
The problem that some of us see is the conflation of rationalism with empiricism. The conflation of distinctly different epistemologies. In modern times, empiricism has been the method that skeptics have used. Skepticism, the brand, has been science based. It’s not that skeptics aren’t rationalists also, but they kept the kinds of conclusions that can be made using those methods separate. |
What is the reason for keeping empiricism unattached to rationalism and what makes their conflation problematic?
I want to write a long post when I have the time, but unfortunately work keeps interfering. But rest assured I'm not asking these questions just to waste your time.
|
I'm following ya H. It seems to me that one without the other is pretty useless. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2011 : 13:20:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I also disagree with a lot of what she has to say. |
But you did pretty much say to me that there wasn't much on the scope issue that you disagree with.
| You: I'm not sure where to start..... I agree with a lot of what she is saying. Did you post this in the SFN forums? Might need more space to comment and discuss. |
Me: I put it in the summary and suggested to Dave that we begin a discussion about the scope issue.
Of course, I worry that I will be the lone voice where it comes to much of this. I don't know... |
| You: We probably don't disagree much on the scope issue. Tone, well, we have already had that argument more than once! O.o |
Those were your words. Since you read what she wrote, and you knew that I pretty much agreed with her (though I do have some minor differences which is to be expected) what I see is you backpedaling now. What else am I to think?
Only if you add the word "formal," which you just did.
|
| Well, no. Did you read all of the parts to her essay? In part three, at the end, she basically says that if you aren't a scientist then you should shut the fuck up or go home. |
The definitions of science and scientific skepticism were arrived at through centuries of study, collaboration, contemplation, and discussion. They are not negotiable, at least not without agreement from a vast majority of scientists. If you cannot accept these definitions as they are, you have three choices:
1. Publish your opinions in peer-reviewed journals and hope that philosophers and scientists agree with you.
2. Keep arguing about it with Skeptics and impede our progress.
3. Go do something else.
As I read that again I am struck by a sense of hypocrisy. She is down on atheists for telling religious people to change their ways or get out, but here she is telling atheists exactly that. |
And as I read it, she is telling everyone not to conflate one epistemology with another and that what falls under the heading, Skepticism, "scientific skepticism" has already been agreed on and its methods are well established. And nowhere in there is she saying that you or I or Randi can't be skeptics based on any formal educational criteria, as you asserted. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2011 : 14:44:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
From Drescher's article:
The behaviors which, in my opinion, are the most troublesome, are:
<snip>
calling for social change related to political ideology or other values. Attempts by Michael Shermer and Sam Harris to promote their values were at least attempts to provide scientific support for those values. More recently Shermer publicly acknowledged (during the climate change panel at TAM8) that political values are outside the scope of Skepticism. However, there remain a large number of Skeptics who continue to argue for the promotion of ‘progressive values’ and Liberal ideology in the name of Skepticism.
|
<snip>
2. Social and political change based on empirical evidence? Why is that a bad thing? When the evidence says we are cooking our planet and the politics have intentionally distorted the evidence for purely political reasons, I think skeptics are justified in calling for political change. Setting policies based on empirical evidence should be something all skeptics want to see happen, isn't it? |
Why can't, or shouldn't indeed social and political change be based in empirical evidence or science? Was Shermer's recantation of political values as part of the skeptical scope really made because this? I haven't had the time to fully immerse myself in Shermer's political ideology and it's conclusion from skepticism, but I recall he promoted libertarianism based on humans historically living in smaller, self-sufficient units. Be they clans, villages, serfdoms, or something similar. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
But I see a problem with his ideology: it's based on obsolete, no longer existing premises.
Humans no longer live in small self-sufficient units. Then I look at cities like London, Paris, or New York I see something more similar to an anthill colony, than any flock of Chimpanzee. Social structures and politics that govern the Chimp-flock can't be applied to the anthill, or termite, or any other similar hive colonies.
When we socially evolved from where most people did or could do anything that needed to be done, to a society of specialization consisting of metalsmiths, weavers, potters, farmers, hunters, traders, and other kinds of craftsmen we expanded our dependency on to larger numbers of individuals until we finally became depended on country-sized population units consisting of millions of individuals. Just like in insect-hives, our different specializations demands a larger base population working in concert to support the specializations. But I'd say we're better off for it.
Study of the environment is science. How we best protect our environment must therefore be political decisions which creates laws on how to treat environment related stuff. Psychology is science, soft science, but still open to scientific inquiry. Sociology, same there, economics... all are more or less open to science, and profoundly affected by politics. Why shouldn't there be some sort of political ideology which could be derived from skepticism?
I get the impression Drescher says "However, there remain a large number of Skeptics who continue to argue for the promotion of ‘progressive values’ and Liberal ideology in the name of Skepticism. " as if liberalism and progressive values are bad things.
It was my skepticism that made me re-evaluate some of my previously held values, moving toward liberalism and 'progressive values', because I saw they were more in line with skeptical thinking.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2011 : 14:56:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Dude
From Drescher's article:
| <snip> Many have little or no education in the basics of science or the scientific process. |
Looks like you are out of the club Kil, and so are people like Randi, and anyone who has no formal science training. |
Only if you add the word "formal," which you just did. |
But that was just what Drescher said.
How is "no education in the basics of science or the scientific process" different from "no formal training"?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2011 : 15:18:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Dude
From Drescher's article:
| <snip> Many have little or no education in the basics of science or the scientific process. |
Looks like you are out of the club Kil, and so are people like Randi, and anyone who has no formal science training. |
Only if you add the word "formal," which you just did. |
But that was just what Drescher said.
How is "no education in the basics of science or the scientific process" different from "no formal training"?
|
That is how I read it as well. Maybe she meant soemthing different, but that is how it comes accross to me.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2011 : 15:26:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Dude
From Drescher's article:
| <snip> Many have little or no education in the basics of science or the scientific process. |
Looks like you are out of the club Kil, and so are people like Randi, and anyone who has no formal science training. |
Only if you add the word "formal," which you just did. |
But that was just what Drescher said.
How is "no education in the basics of science or the scientific process" different from "no formal training"?
|
I'm educated in the basics of science without any formal education. (Well, I had some. But you know... A few science classes in college.) So is Randi and most of the people who post on this site. What she is talking about are people who are ignorant of sci methodology and so on. Sure. Many of us are self educated. But that counts. What worries some of us is that too many people who are calling themselves skeptics these days wouldn't know science if it hit them in the head.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2011 : 15:34:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Dude
From Drescher's article:
| <snip> Many have little or no education in the basics of science or the scientific process. |
Looks like you are out of the club Kil, and so are people like Randi, and anyone who has no formal science training. |
Only if you add the word "formal," which you just did. |
But that was just what Drescher said.
How is "no education in the basics of science or the scientific process" different from "no formal training"?
|
That is how I read it as well. Maybe she meant soemthing different, but that is how it comes accross to me.
|
Yes. You are taking what she wrote wrong. I know that to be a fact. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2011 : 16:29:54 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
Those were your words. Since you read what she wrote, and you knew that I pretty much agreed with her (though I do have some minor differences which is to be expected) what I see is you backpedaling now. What else am I to think?
|
I was talking about you and I when I said we probably don't disagree much on scope. I was basing that on years of forum discussions here. Maybe I'm wrong?
Is skepticism limited to testable claims? Well, yes. That is the short answer. The problem I have with Ms Drescher's approach is how she seems to determine if a claim is testable. It is only untestable if you can't state it in testable terms, and most claims about religion can be stated in terms that are testable at least in concept. Prayer, miracles, divine appearances, and all that jazz. Testable (and repeatedly tested) claims. What she is saying is that as soon as I decide to play word scramble with how my claim is stated, and phrase it in a way that makes it untestable in concept, then skepticism can no longer deal with that claim. That is a failure of applied empiricism. Specifically with religion, if you take the claims and place them in the context of history and anthropology, you suddenly have an empirical approach to evaluating even claims stated in an untestable format by comparing them to other similar claims made by other people and other cultures present and past.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2011 : 16:58:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Dude
From Drescher's article:
| <snip> Many have little or no education in the basics of science or the scientific process. |
Looks like you are out of the club Kil, and so are people like Randi, and anyone who has no formal science training. |
Only if you add the word "formal," which you just did. |
But that was just what Drescher said.
How is "no education in the basics of science or the scientific process" different from "no formal training"?
|
That is how I read it as well. Maybe she meant soemthing different, but that is how it comes accross to me.
|
Yes. You are taking what she wrote wrong. I know that to be a fact.
|
Ok then. You get to stay in the club!
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2011 : 20:00:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Kil
The problem that some of us see is the conflation of rationalism with empiricism. The conflation of distinctly different epistemologies. In modern times, empiricism has been the method that skeptics have used. Skepticism, the brand, has been science based. It’s not that skeptics aren’t rationalists also, but they kept the kinds of conclusions that can be made using those methods separate. |
What is the reason for keeping empiricism unattached to rationalism and what makes their conflation problematic? |
This would be strange, to say the least. Empiricism cannot tell us which empirical experiments might give us results relevant to the investigation at hand. Empiricism cannot tell us to favor the more parsimonious or natural theory to explain a particular phenomenon. Empiricism and rationalism are thus inextricably intertwined.
They are definitely different epistemologies, but scientific skepticism cannot operate without both of them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2011 : 09:16:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Kil
The problem that some of us see is the conflation of rationalism with empiricism. The conflation of distinctly different epistemologies. In modern times, empiricism has been the method that skeptics have used. Skepticism, the brand, has been science based. It’s not that skeptics aren’t rationalists also, but they kept the kinds of conclusions that can be made using those methods separate. |
What is the reason for keeping empiricism unattached to rationalism and what makes their conflation problematic? |
This would be strange, to say the least. Empiricism cannot tell us which empirical experiments might give us results relevant to the investigation at hand. Empiricism cannot tell us to favor the more parsimonious or natural theory to explain a particular phenomenon. Empiricism and rationalism are thus inextricably intertwined.
They are definitely different epistemologies, but scientific skepticism cannot operate without both of them.
|
Hmmm... I have part of a longer reply written, but I see your point. Perhaps the problem I'm seeing has more to do with people who default mainly to rationalism, and are not particularly interested in, or they are ignorant of the science part of the skeptic equation. Many of my atheist friends are simply NOT skeptics as I would define skepticism, which is science based. Most of them think they are. If it were one or two or a handful, I wouldn't be alarmed.
Another anecdote. Just yesterday I was accused of this; "Dear David Glück, You are an agnostic because you do not value science and critical thinking." That from a secular humanist chaplain after I presented him with my regular and true answer to why I identify as an agnostic/atheist after his rant about how Huxley was a bigot and the only reason to identify as agnostic is to "serve the religious believers and is without merit or empirical evidence." Well of course it's without empirical evidence. That's the pont! (He chose to ignore the atheist part of my explanation.) WTF? That guy fancies himself a skeptic and a critical thinker. Okay doaky.
Most of them don't even mention empiricism or science as being important to skepticism, unless it's to say something dumb like "science has proved the non existence of god." This idiot was a cut above, or maybe a cut below, because he gets that science and empiricism are important words, but he doen't know how to apply them. His idea of those concepts are reduced to a professed skeptical version of psychobabble. And of course, "science has proved the non existence of god." He knows that because he read "God, The Failed Hypothesis." Another feature of this secular chaplain's reply to me was his hostility toward anyone who doesn't share his view. This thread is not about tone, but hey! The guy is a dick.
This kind of shit is driving a lot of us crazy. And again, looking at my friends list, which is admittedly anecdotal evidence, the problem if far more pervasive than the anti science ramblings of a few contrarians.
I'm going to post as much as I wrote in reply to Dave's reply to me, because I think most of it is about what I'm talking about here. Because I think Dave is correct about rationalism being needed to ferret out what needs to be looked at, and what to do with it, and because I am the one who brought rationalism into the discussion (not Barbara), let me reiterate that the problem that we see may be due to an overzealous use of rationalism at the expense of empiricism, both of which inform proper skepticism.
| Nononono, Kil. The atheists who are conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxers, moon-landing hoaxers (etc.) are neither skeptics nor rationalists. They are contrarians. Your examples have nothing to do with a skeptic/rationalist separation of methodologies, because the contrarians subscribe to neither methodology. |
Sure. What I said was it might have been rationalist thinking that brought them to atheism. My guess is that for some of them, it was. An awful lot of them, in fact most if them list Hitchens, Dawkins, Myers and Harris or some combination of the above as “people who inspire them.” (Hitchens is a bit of a contrarian himself.) You’re probably right about at least some of them being contrarians. But again, their skepticism isn’t rooted in science. The “truther” arguments might seem perfectly reasonable to someone who doesn’t know how to evaluate evidence. Same goes for anti vaxxers. Their mistake has to do with confusing correlation with causation. To them it seems rational, logical and self evident that vaccination leads to bad things despite what the scientific literature says. Again, it’s ignorance of how science works that leads them to such conclusions. They think that conclusions in science are predetermined by an agenda, and don’t understand the importance of peer review, replication of findings and consensus.
| And any movement popular enough to generate conferences with 1,000+ people is going to attract its share of raging lunatics who self-identify with the in-group for all the wrong reasons. Popularity denies purism. |
Granted.
| Ask any of the 1,500 Christian denominations in the US why they went through a schism to become what they are now. The trick, I think, is to allow the lunatics to schism themselves away simply by maintaining a steady course, and not calling them heretics like Drescher did. |
Well… See. Some of us think that they need to learn what skepticism is, and what it isn’t. And in order to do that, they need to learn what science is, and what it isn’t.
| And this still is about Dresher: |
| Me: As for strawmen, maybe it's a misunderstanding, but there is this idea that Myers and others are arguing that the idea of differentiating between methods of inquiry, empiricism vs. rationalism, which is what the scope debate is really about, is a way to let religion off the hook or to tell atheists to get out of town. That’s not it at all. |
| Except that Drescher made it rather explicit that that's exactly what it's about. Big-S Skepticism is her way or the highway. |
Well, yeah. If you are going to call yourself a skeptic, and also hold that skepticism ™ need not be science based, or don’t understand science’s roll in skepticism, than calling yourself a skeptic is absurd.
| My point is that scientific inquiry is a method to ensure that those things we grant our provisional assent are likely to be true. And because of that, those things for which we cannot gather evidence in principle cannot be granted provisional assent in any scientifically skeptical way. This directly contradicts the idea that skepticism "can't say anything" about such subjects. We can. We can say that if it's impossible to scientifically collect supporting evidence for a hypothesis, then it's impossible to grant provisional assent. |
Who’s asking you to grant something that can’t be tested provisional assent? That’s a philosophical decision after a scientific approach has been ruled out. I’m an atheist. At one time I was an atheist without much knowledge of skepticism. It was skepticism that caused me to add agnostic to my self-identification and caused me to reevaluate exactly why I am also an atheist. It was learning processes that lead me to understand the importance of being as precise as I could be. (Of course, defining myself that way is also a hassle. It would be much easier to just call myself an atheist and not have to explain myself over and over again. But it wouldn't be precise.)
| In still other terms, a scientific skeptic shouldn't be in the business of saying that we can't reject hypotheses which could not possibly have any supporting evidence. But that's exactly what Drescher says. This isn't rationalism contra skepticism, this is scientific skepticism. |
That assumes the impossibility of ever gaining supporting evidence. Why go there? Sure, most of us are deeply skeptical of god and psi. That’s a fair position to take. Please note that most of the people who are concerned about scientific ignorance among self-professed skeptics are also atheists. But then again, some aren’t.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2011 : 12:18:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Another anecdote. Just yesterday I was accused of this; "Dear David Glück, You are an agnostic because you do not value science and critical thinking." That from a secular humanist chaplain after I presented him with my regular and true answer to why I identify as an agnostic/atheist after his rant about how Huxley was a bigot and the only reason to identify as agnostic is to "serve the religious believers and is without merit or empirical evidence." Well of course it's without empirical evidence. That's the pont! (He chose to ignore the atheist part of my explanation.) WTF? That guy fancies himself a skeptic and a critical thinker. Okay doaky. |
Yeah, that guy is neither. He's also not a rationalist if he thinks agnosticism requires empirical evidence.
What to do about people who self-identify as part of a group to which they clearly don't belong? If the group were "Yankees fans," the obvious solution to the problem of posers is to beat the snot out of them. Religious people get to go on pogroms or jihads. What do we skeptics - who are mostly social liberals and fairly pacifist - do?
I know one thing we shouldn't do: pretend that the problem is about the "scope of Skepticism," as if the issue were a bunch of like-minded people who just want a little more political or religious activism to be added to the movement. From your descriptions, Kil, the problem is really a bunch of ideologues who think that "skeptical" describes their attitudes really well, when the label they should embrace is "cynic."
Another thing we shouldn't do: throw reasonable people like Amanda Marcotte under the bus in an attempt to drive out the wanna-bes and the cynical ideologues.| ...let me reiterate that the problem that we see may be due to an overzealous use of rationalism at the expense of empiricism... |
No, those who complain about agnosticism not being empirically grouned, or who are 9/11 Truthers, or who are anti-vaxers, are not exhibiting an overzealous use of rationalism. They're exhibiting too little rationalism.
Anti-vax folks, for example, are generally either believers in Wakefield's fraud, or don't think post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy. A rationalist would reject both as a means to knowledge.| My guess is that for some of them, it was. An awful lot of them, in fact most if them list Hitchens, Dawkins, Myers and Harris or some combination of the above as “people who inspire them.” (Hitchens is a bit of a contrarian himself.) |
A lot of the appeal of those particular people is that in the public eye, they're the underdogs. Contrarians like nothing more than to be on the side that appears to be losing, just to accuse their detractors of being in the "mainstream."| But again, their skepticism isn’t rooted in science. The “truther” arguments might seem perfectly reasonable to someone who doesn’t know how to evaluate evidence. Same goes for anti vaxxers. Their confusion has to do with confusing correlation with causation. To them it seems rational, logical and self evident that vaccination leads to bad things despite what the scientific literature says. Again, it’s ignorance of how science works that leads them to such conclusions. They think that conclusions in science are predetermined by an agenda, and don’t understand the importance of peer review, replication of findings and consensus. |
Yeah, but that's not rationalism, either.| Well… See. Some of us think that they need to learn what skepticism is, and what it isn’t. And in order to do that, they need to learn what science is, and what it isn’t. |
And that's fine. It just isn't required that "Big-S" Skepticism be identified only with scientific skepticism to do that.| Well, yeah. If you are going to call yourself a skeptic, and also hold that skepticism ™ need not be science based, or don’t understand science’s roll in skepticism, than calling yourself a skeptic is absurd. |
But that's not what Drescher is saying. She's saying that "Big-S" Skepticism is only about scientific skepticism and empiricism. But it can't be, as I said above. Rationalism must play a role in Skepticism.| Who’s asking you to grant something that can’t be tested provisional assent? |
Nonononono, you've got it backwards. I'm saying that scientific skepticism should conclude that we cannot grant provisional assent to something which is untestable. Drescher, instead, wants to conclude that we "can't say anything" about such hypotheses. We can: we can say that if it's impossible for there to be evidence in favor of a proposition, then it's irrational and unscientific to believe it. Just like it's irrational and unscientific to believe hypotheses for which we have only negative evidence.| That’s a philosophical decision after a scientific approach has been ruled out. |
And even scientific skeptics cannot avoid rationalism, or cherry-pick when to use it and when not to. If Skepticism rules out a hypothesis, we don't get to just switch philosophies and say, "well, I believe it anyway."| That assumes the impossibility of ever gaining supporting evidence. Why go there? |
A hypothesis like "I have ESP except when I am tested" asserts the impossibility of ever gaining evidence for it. Drescher says that Skepticism has nothing to say about such claims. I say, "baloney."| Sure, most of us are deeply skeptical of god and psi. That’s a fair position to take. Please note that most of the people who are concerned about scientific ignorance among self-professed skeptics are also atheists. But then again, some aren’t. |
Yes, I know that Drescher is an atheist, but she also wants "Big-S" Skepticism to be silent about untestable religious claims in order to ensure that there's room in the tent for people like Hal Bidlack and Pamela Gay. The problem I have with that is that Bidlack and Gay are refusing to apply scientific skepticism to their religious beliefs, because they are granting provisional assent to particular claims when there is no empirical evidence or logical argument on which to base that assent. They want to believe, and so they do, despite their otherwise solid creds as Skeptics.
Now, I don't want to kick such people out of the club (like Drescher wants to do to Marcotte), but I also don't want to hear them whining when their religious beliefs are challenged. If their religious beliefs are such precious sacred cows to them that they can't stand to be around vocal, rational atheists, then they're free to stay home instead of attending conferences. If it's the cynical ideologues who are making them uncomfortable, then we're back to the first problem. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2011 : 15:34:49 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| Yes, I know that Drescher is an atheist, but she also wants "Big-S" Skepticism to be silent about untestable religious claims in order to ensure that there's room in the tent for people like Hal Bidlack and Pamela Gay. The problem I have with that is that Bidlack and Gay are refusing to apply scientific skepticism to their religious beliefs, because they are granting provisional assent to particular claims when there is no empirical evidence or logical argument on which to base that assent. They want to believe, and so they do, despite their otherwise solid creds as Skeptics. |
What she is trying to do, it seems, is create some new space where we can set these things she calls "personal knowledge" and ignore them or remain silent about them.
On the other hand she says that science and scientific skepticism are about truth.
These statements are generating some cognitive dissonance when I try to reconcile them. You can't say that science and scientific skepticism are the road to discovering truth and at the same time declare that some things can't be evaluated with them.
There are an infinite number of ways to state claims so they are untestable in principle. Most claims stated in that way, however, can be restated in a way that is testable in principle, and as you have said, remaining silent is not what scientific skepticism calls for in the instances where a claim is untestable. If you can't even assign provisional assent or rejection to a claim, you have said something about it. In fact, you have said something very strong about it. You have placed it in the same category as all imaginary things.
The whole "nothing to say" thing is nonsense. There is something to say about every claim. I can't think of any interpretation of this that isn't about creating a loophole to give people with a god belief a free pass on their god beliefs.
Its just another twist on plain ugly old accommodationism. Drescher also seems to be mixing up her justified irritation with those atheists who aren't actually versed in the basic tools of skepticism with this.
|
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The scope of skepticism
