|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 03/12/2013 : 18:27:10
|
A document by Sharon Hill, it can be found at Doubtful News:Purpose: To provide a clear, easy-to-read guide about the “Skeptical” viewpoint as subscribed to by many who might call themselves Skeptics or critical thinkers; to distinguish practical Skepticism from the popular use of the phrase “I’m skeptical,” and from those who claim to be “skeptics” regarding some well-established conclusion (such as climate change). Most of it is a very good, basic run-down of skepticism.
Of course, I have a problem with one section:Skeptic does not equal “atheist”. Many Skeptics are atheists, but not all. Skepticism is a process of evaluating claims, not a set of conclusions. Skeptics are a diverse group so lack of religious beliefs should not be assumed. Scientific Skepticism is applied only to testable claims (such as “prayer heals”), not to untestable claims such as the existence of God, who is supernatural. “Is there a God?” is a question outside the realm of science. However, philosophical skepticism can be invoked in considering claims about the supernatural. "Is there a God?" is precisely as scientific as "Is there a Higgs Boson?" so long as the concept of "God" is well-defined. Most god-concepts are empirical in that they are at least partially physical beings that operate within this universe and act upon the objects and people within in, and do so in describable ways such that tests could be conceived which could determine whether those gods existed historically, exist now, or probably never existed.
For example, the tested fact that prayer doesn't heal is a strike against the existence of any god purported to answer prayers for healing. Once we scientifically minimize the likelihood of the existence of all gods with empirically testable traits, what's left?
A vanishingly small number of people believe in god(s) which have or have had no empirically detectable effects. More - but still a minority - believe in trickster gods who erase every last bit of evidence of their passing. In either case, the conclusion should be the same: for all empirical purposes, the difference between such gods existing and not existing is nil.
But more importantly, for Hill to mention this sort of untestable deity as the norm (as what regular people think of when they consider the unqualified question, "Is there a God?") is a misrepresentation, at best. Her intended audience - members of the media - consists primarily of people who believe in deities that do leave evidence behind. I can't imagine that none of them will take home the message that their personal conception of god is "safe" from skeptical inquiry when it isn't.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2013 : 19:26:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
A vanishingly small number of people believe in god(s) which have or have had no empirically detectable effects. |
Says who?
edit: I thought you meant the number is decreasing over time, which I guess you didn't mean |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 03/12/2013 19:28:03 |
 |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2013 : 19:32:02 [Permalink]
|
But still, the accuracy of what was said isn't changed assuming there exist people who do believe in gods without empirically detectable effects and are (otherwise) skeptical. Maybe changing the word "many" to "most" would be better?
I have to think critical thinking would push out that belief, but this isn't an argument based on what most god concepts are, which it seems to me you're making. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 03/12/2013 19:32:55 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2013 : 20:38:24 [Permalink]
|
No, Mach, my point is that the claim...“Is there a God?” is a question outside the realm of science. ...is ambiguous and likely to mislead the target audience. If Hill means "any conceivable god," then the question is outside of science because the question itself is poorly defined, not because god is "supernatural." That makes Hill's statement no more interesting or profound or informative about Skepticism than "'Is there a flerblewhatzle?' is a question outside the realm of science." As soon as we ask, "does god X exist?" we can empirically test for all but the most nebulous of deities (who may as well not exist for all the effect they have on the world), just like we'll be able to test for the existence of flerblewhatzles after we describe what they are and do.| edit: I thought you meant the number is decreasing over time, which I guess you didn't mean |
Yeah, bad wording on my part. |
- 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 - 03/13/2013 : 05:02:44 [Permalink]
|
Commenter Marcus Ranum missed the distinction between big-S and little-s Skepticism in the document, and I think many people not already in the know will miss that, also.
Kylie Sturgess' blog, Token Skeptic, is where I found the Media Guide mentioned first, by the way. I shoulda hat-tipped her in the OP. |
- 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 - 03/13/2013 : 07:48:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Commenter Marcus Ranum missed the distinction between big-S and little-s Skepticism in the document, and I think many people not already in the know will miss that, also.
Kylie Sturgess' blog, Token Skeptic, is where I found the Media Guide mentioned first, by the way. I shoulda hat-tipped her in the OP.
|
Good reply Dave. Sharon Hill has commented also.
Are you a regular reader of the Token Skeptic blog? |
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 - 03/13/2013 : 10:19:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Are you a regular reader of the Token Skeptic blog? |
I'm a regular reader of most of FtB. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2013 : 18:22:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
As soon as we ask, "does god X exist?" we can empirically test for all but the most nebulous of deities (who may as well not exist for all the effect they have on the world), just like we'll be able to test for the existence of flerblewhatzles after we describe what they are and do. |
The most nebulous of deities are still deities (or concepts of deities at least), but, yeah, I guess it's more of a PR issue of determining effective wording than much else if it's for media.
I'd be interested in seeing the author's differentiation between scientific and philosophical skepticism though. She seems to be implying scientific skepticism doesn't have anything to say about unfalsifiable claims (the nebulous god concepts). I thought philosophical skepticism only really meant some degree of disagreement (maybe very extreme, but not necessarily) with certainty in knowledge claims. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 03/13/2013 18:23:33 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2013 : 21:22:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
The most nebulous of deities are still deities (or concepts of deities at least)... |
Yes, but we can't distinguish between a universe full of undetectable deities from a universe without any deities at all. The most nebulous of gods may as well not exist for all the effects it has on us (none at all).| ...but, yeah, I guess it's more of a PR issue of determining effective wording than much else if it's for media. |
It's actually deeper than that, because there's a years-long dispute within the Movement over its relation to religion in general, but that's for other threads.| I'd be interested in seeing the author's differentiation between scientific and philosophical skepticism though. She seems to be implying scientific skepticism doesn't have anything to say about unfalsifiable claims (the nebulous god concepts). I thought philosophical skepticism only really meant some degree of disagreement (maybe very extreme, but not necessarily) with certainty in knowledge claims. |
It means exactly that. Hill obviously meant something like "critical thought regarding philosophical claims" and not "philosophical 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 - 03/21/2013 : 12:00:15 [Permalink]
|
Orginally posted by Kil, over here
“Are there ghosts?” is also outside of the realm of science to answer. I don’t see the inconsistency. The existence of ghosts is not ruled out anymore than God is. The same application of testability still applies. Where skeptics can test claims about the existence of God, they do. And that’s pretty much a regular thing. I don’t know many skeptics who aren’t doubtful of the existence of God or Gods or ghosts based on the same criteria. There are some…. Sure. |
Then the question becomes, why did Hill feel the need to distinguish god-questions from ghost-questions in the Media Guide?
Are there prominent skeptics (like ones invited to be speakers at conferences, for example) who openly profess a belief in ghosts? Do leaders of the skeptical community claim to need to accomodate such beliefs to meet other, broader goals? No and no? That is the inconsistency. |
- 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 - 03/21/2013 : 13:20:28 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Are there prominent skeptics (like ones invited to be speakers at conferences, for example) who openly profess a belief in ghosts? Do leaders of the skeptical community claim to need to accomodate such beliefs to meet other, broader goals? No and no? That is the inconsistency. |
Well actually, I've seen skeptics at TAM argue against climate change, statins, a fellow who thought our landing on the moon was a hoax, why we should be libertarians and so on. Ghost believers? I doubt it. But call me an accommodationist if that's what I am, but it won't be me kicking Pamala Gay out of the club. She brings too much good stuff to the table. And while I don't agree with it, I'm not put off by her faith.
I have told her that religion is subject to a skeptical examination too. I'm an atheist and a skeptic, but I'm not an anti-theist. So I'll grant you that there is an inconsistency, at least in me, and that many of us do make some accommodation for people of faith. What can I say?
Look back at my TAM4 essay. I haven't changed on that.
I realize that I just made this about myself. I can't speak for others. If you want to know why Sharon Hill put that in her media guide, ask her. What I can say I already did say. Ghosts and Gods, from a skeptical point of view, are pretty much treated the same. |
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 - 03/21/2013 : 13:34:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
But call me an accommodationist if that's what I am, but it won't be me kicking Pamala Gay out of the club. |
I feel this is a strawman and unhelpful. I don't think anyone is seriously proposing expunging theists from the ranks of skepticism. What I would like to see stop is the preferential treatment religion gets as a "special case," protected to a degree that other dubious positions are not afforded. I want consistency. If that leads to people like Pamala Gay leaving the skeptic movement, I would mourn their loss. But it won't be us kicking them out.
So I'll grant you that there is an inconsistency, and many of us do make some accommodation for people of faith. What can I say?
|
That you'll stop?
|
"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 03/21/2013 13:37:57 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2013 : 13:37:49 [Permalink]
|
| I wasn't done editing yet Humbert. Read the rest of what I wrote. |
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 - 03/21/2013 : 13:41:27 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
That you'll stop? |
I'll say it again. Ghosts and Gods are pretty much treated the same way by me. I am somewhat accommodating to people of faith, even as I question their faith. |
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 - 03/21/2013 : 14:32:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Well actually, I've seen skeptics at TAM argue against climate change, statins, a fellow who thought our landing on the moon was a hoax, why we should be libertarians and so on. |
Come on, Kil: you know that the difference between those things and "the god question" is that the latter is typically posed as something for which there can be no evidence. The people you mention are all either ignorant of the evidence or in denial of the evidence, but they'd all agree that conclusions in those subjects should be evidence-driven. The most-common form of "the god question" in skeptical circles, though (including the Media Guide), is the one where science can't tackle the question because there can't be any evidence for god. So, apples and oranges.| Ghost believers? I doubt it. |
I would hope so, but I would also hope that "god believers" would evince a similar reaction. But it doesn't.| But call me an accommodationist if that's what I am, but it won't be me kicking Pamala Gay out of the club. She brings too much good stuff to the table. And while I don't agree with it, I'm not put off by her faith. |
And I wouldn't know she's religious if you hadn't told me so. She's not the kind of believer I'm talking about.
I won't be calling you an accommodationist unless you say something like, "it's so important to keep people like Pamela Gay in the skeptical movement that we need to quit criticizing religion for fear of alienating them." I say it's not that important. Pamela Gay isn't so critical to Movement Skepticism that her religious feelings need to be top concern. Neither are Hal Bidlack (who famously gave a TAM speech about how unfair and mean it was to criticize his religious ideas) or Ken Miller (who famously suggested that if people didn't quit criticizing his religion he'd take his ball and go home). If these people want to leave the movement because of criticism (and even mocking) of religion, they can be replaced.| Ghosts and Gods, from a skeptical point of view, are pretty much treated the same. |
As soon as you can find someone in a leadership position saying that we need to lay off the ghost criticisms for fear of driving the ghost believers out of the skeptical movement, I will agree that they're treated pretty much the same. Because it's easy to find skeptical leaders saying such things about god-believers. |
- 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 - 03/21/2013 : 15:21:50 [Permalink]
|
Me:
Ghosts and Gods, from a skeptical point of view, are pretty much treated the same. |
| Dave:As soon as you can find someone in a leadership position saying that we need to lay off the ghost criticisms for fear of driving the ghost believers out of the skeptical movement, I will agree that they're treated pretty much the same. |
Nope. From a skeptical point of view, they are treated the same. Testable claims are tested. No one is telling anyone to lay off of testable claims about ghosts or testable claims about God and religion. And people of faith who are also skeptics usually support that sort of thing. (I have yet to meet a biblical literalist among skeptics, for example.)
Find me the person in a leadership position who says we can't test claims made about either one of those things. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Media Guide to Skepticism
