|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
 Posted - 06/23/2005 : 11:10:02
|
How good are we skeptics at being skeptical? I often find myself automatically disbeliving hard-to-believe things. That isn't a very skeptical attitude.
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2005 : 11:38:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latsot
How good are we skeptics at being skeptical? I often find myself automatically disbeliving hard-to-believe things. That isn't a very skeptical attitude.
I think that we all do a little knee-jerking, now and then; I certainly do. It's human nature to initally go with your instincts, and often enough those instincts are wrong. The difference is that we are always open to a new arguement and new evidence, and if that should demonstrate our error, we can accept it with no more than a blush.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2005 : 11:45:15 [Permalink]
|
I don't find it difficult to maintain an open mind.
The difficult part is sorting through the seemingly endless piles of crap that people claim as true.
If it is more of the same-old garbage, I just file it away as that.
I would agree that you can get into the habbit of just dismissing everything that sounds fanciful, and that it can be hard to catch the things that are actually worthy of consideration.
I also give significant regard to the source of new info. AiG, Hovind, Discovery Institute, etc... all pretty low on the credibility list. NIH, NAS, any reputable university, etc... much higher on the list. The source is like a preliminary filter to me.
But about your point, yes. Hard to believe things are often initially dismissed. Even if they later prove to have great merit and explanatory power. (plate techtonics/continental drift is a great example)
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2005 : 13:36:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't find it difficult to maintain an open mind.
I don't think I do, either.
Well, I don't *think* I do.
quote:
The difficult part is sorting through the seemingly endless piles of crap that people claim as true.
Well, yeah...of course. But this is hardly an easy task. We see people who make amazing claims for crystals alongside apparently respectable scientists who make dubious claims about, say, ibuprofen.
I have to admit that my instinct is probably to believe the ibuprofen claims (even though they may be dubious) and not to believe the crystal claims. This is reasonable of course - as far as I'm aware, nobody has produced any reasonable evidence about the effectiveness of crystals, whereas people have done all kinds of respectable trials on all kinds of drugs.
Of course, this doesnt lend any credibility to this particular trial, yet as skeptics, I maintain that we tend to have more sympathy with this trial than with (say) crystal 'research'. See - I can't even bring myself not to put 'research' in quotes.
I like to think I have a decent mental toolkit that helps me decide when I'm making unwarrented assumptions, but I'm not sure I know how to *evaluate* that toolkit. I suppose this comes closer to the point I was making - how do you evaluate that toolkit? I'm not sure *I* know how, yet I consider myself as rational as the next person.
Note - I'm not slagging off any particular trial, so don't tell me how any given ibuprofen trial is good or bad science - I'm just making a point.
Cheers
r |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 06:42:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The difficult part is sorting through the seemingly endless piles of crap that people claim as true.
And I think this is the leading cause of many of our knee jerk reactions. Sometimes when I see some of this crap I almost knee jerk so hard I bust my nose >:-D. It does lead to a sort of cyncism, sadly, but it can be guarded against. Dang woo woos ruin the enjoyment of life more than they think :< |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 07:35:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latsot
Of course, this doesnt lend any credibility to this particular trial, yet as skeptics, I maintain that we tend to have more sympathy with this trial than with (say) crystal 'research'. See - I can't even bring myself not to put 'research' in quotes.
Sympathy isn't the issue. What lends credibility to any trial is its attempt to eliminate bias. Whether a study of ibuprofen or crystals, if it meets the standards of scientific integrity, it will have credibility. And it's simply cynicism generated by a long, looooong history of failure to meet those standards which leads many of us to assume, on first impressions only, that any new crystal study would follow its predecessors into the junk pile (and I stress that part because if, indeed, a careful reading suggests we're wrong, most of us would admit to that).quote:
I like to think I have a decent mental toolkit that helps me decide when I'm making unwarrented assumptions, but I'm not sure I know how to *evaluate* that toolkit. I suppose this comes closer to the point I was making - how do you evaluate that toolkit? I'm not sure *I* know how, yet I consider myself as rational as the next person.
The toolkit is evaluated by repeatedly trying it out, and seeing how well it works on a practical level. You can also apply parts of it to other parts, but that's a fairly limited methodology. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 08:27:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
(and I stress that part because if, indeed, a careful reading suggests we're wrong, most of us would admit to that)
or the detractors get old and die. Whichever comes first. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2005 : 20:42:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latsot
How good are we skeptics at being skeptical? I often find myself automatically disbeliving hard-to-believe things. That isn't a very skeptical attitude.
It is consistent I suppose that a skeptic should be at least somewhat skeptical of his skepticism. 
As a concrete example, it is understandable that a skeptic should immediately doubt that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus. The combination of the seeming improbability that such should even be preserved in the first place, plus the fact that religious relics have be fabricated in the past, together with the implied 'supernaturalistic' nature of the image imprinting should leave any typical skeptic essentially dismissing it right off the bat.
But what might further investigation reveal to the truly open mind? Perhaps ockham's razor may favour the possibility that it *is* the burial cloth of Jesus, given the cumulative evidence.
I couldn't find any reference here at SFN to this finding in January of 2005: It is likely that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the shroud to the 15th century or so was - incredibly enough - performed on a medieval repair patch and not the shroud itself.  The shroud is now apparently dated to between something like 1,300 to 3,000 years of age. Check out
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050124/shroud.html
Also, this site gives some fairly concise statements which may indicate that the image on the shroud was not an artist's work:
http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm
Anyways, the shroud issue makes for an interesting study in how we do science.
|
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2005 : 21:49:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Anyways, the shroud issue makes for an interesting study in how we do science.
Not really. It just means that you have to fend off the believers if your results are not what they want. Good science is pretty much done the same way whether we are analysing religious artefacts or subatomic particles.
I also think you're misusing occam's razor. Based on available evidence, it seems more likely that the shroud image is not a forgery. Someone probably was wrapped in it. That's OK. But none of the evidence in the links ever talks about "was it really Jesus". Making that jump is a leap of faith. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2005 : 05:37:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie: Anyways, the shroud issue makes for an interesting study in how we do science.quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
Not really. It just means that you have to fend off the believers if your results are not what they want. Good science is pretty much done the same way whether we are analysing religious artefacts or subatomic particles.
It seems pretty apparent to me that both sides of the opinion spectrum bring their biases into how they do their science. So it turns out that the shroud is not medieval. How many "experts" were so sure it was?
I visited a few sites which promoted the artistic forgery view. They said something to the effect that the 'proportions of the body were wrong'. Yet as you say, it is most likely that the image was made using a real human body wrapped in the shroud. So the statement that 'the proportions were wrong' is entirely misleading, which is bad science on the part of the 'skeptical' side.
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad I also think you're misusing occam's razor. Based on available evidence, it seems more likely that the shroud image is not a forgery. Someone probably was wrapped in it. That's OK. But none of the evidence in the links ever talks about "was it really Jesus". Making that jump is a leap of faith.
Ockham's razor would favour two results imo: It was the burial cloth of Jesus, or it was the work of someone before 700 AD who went as far as probably crucifying a fine specimen of manhood, wrapping him in a shroud and somehow ensuring an image was created, and then convincing devout people in the church that it was the real thing.
I personally would favour the latter view *if* an image like the one on the shroud could be reproduced by scientists using methods available to people before 700 AD. Anyone heard of such?
|
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2005 : 06:56:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
It seems pretty apparent to me that both sides of the opinion spectrum bring their biases into how they do their science. So it turns out that the shroud is not medieval. How many "experts" were so sure it was?
I visited a few sites which promoted the artistic forgery view. They said something to the effect that the 'proportions of the body were wrong'. Yet as you say, it is most likely that the image was made using a real human body wrapped in the shroud. So the statement that 'the proportions were wrong' is entirely misleading, which is bad science on the part of the 'skeptical' side.
People have egos. Even scientists and skeptics. I hate being wrong too and will sometimes argue a fallacious point. But eventually I will concede whether I like it or not. But that's why we always do more research.
quote:
Ockham's razor would favour two results imo: It was the burial cloth of Jesus, or it was the work of someone before 700 AD who went as far as probably crucifying a fine specimen of manhood, wrapping him in a shroud and somehow ensuring an image was created, and then convincing devout people in the church that it was the real thing.
Wrong, in our case we must pick between a) Forgery b) Someone was in the cloth. b) seems to make more sense. I don't know where you're getting the added "there was a man, therefore it was Jesus" thing. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2005 : 08:32:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I personally would favour the latter view *if* an image like the one on the shroud could be reproduced by scientists using methods available to people before 700 AD. Anyone heard of such?
I saw such, done with clay and paint, by Joe Nickell. And I believe he's the one who recently wrote a good rebuttal to the "we only C14-dated some patches, not the original" claims.
And one of the problems is that the porportions on the shroud are wrong. If you wrap a painted (for example) face in cloth, when you flatten out the cloth, the image of the face gets very wide. Same with any other round object. Try it yourself, using tempera paint on an egg or something similar. |
- 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 - 06/26/2005 : 09:55:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It seems pretty apparent to me that both sides of the opinion spectrum bring their biases into how they do their science. So it turns out that the shroud is not medieval. How many "experts" were so sure it was?
I always find it interesting how when one scientist comes up with something that either negates or changes something that another scientist came up with previously.... that somehow the religious manage to turn that into a negative criticism of science.
Please provide reference to the "experts" you are reffering to. I'd be interested in seeing just exactly how "so sure" they were.
And... as Dave_W pointed out, the date is just one of many problems with the alledged shroud.
I can't emphasize this enough: WHen you make a claim, you are responsible for providing evidence to support that claim. What evidence is provided, that withstands even minimal scrutiny, by those who claim this shroud is "The" shroud?
And how far OT are we in this thread now? hehe...
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2005 : 12:20:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markieOckham's razor would favour two results imo: It was the burial cloth of Jesus, or it was the work of someone before 700 AD who went as far as probably crucifying a fine specimen of manhood, wrapping him in a shroud and somehow ensuring an image was created, and then convincing devout people in the church that it was the real thing. quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad Wrong, in our case we must pick between a) Forgery b) Someone was in the cloth. b) seems to make more sense. I don't know where you're getting the added "there was a man, therefore it was Jesus" thing.
OK, I was considering a forgery could also be the result an artist using as part of his technique, an apparently crucified man under the cloth.
But you're saying that if it wasn't a forgery, somehow the church got hold of a cloth that had the image of *some* crucified man in it that wasn't Jesus, and they came to believe that it was Jesus? While I understand that there is no way to tell it was Jesus' image, it seems to be the most straightforward explanation to posit that it was Jesus, assuming it was not an artist's creation of course. I mean, how many crucified men would leave images like that on a cloth? Anyone in for a study?
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2005 : 12:44:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I personally would favour the latter view *if* an image like the one on the shroud could be reproduced by scientists using methods available to people before 700 AD. Anyone heard of such? quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.I saw such, done with clay and paint, by Joe Nickell. And I believe he's the one who recently wrote a good rebuttal to the "we only C14-dated some patches, not the original" claims.
Excellent. Did he accurately reproduce a shroud like image, showing up in photographic negative like the Turin shroud, and with other characteristic features of the shroud? I'd like to see it and how it compares with the Turin shroud.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.And one of the problems is that the porportions on the shroud are wrong. If you wrap a painted (for example) face in cloth, when you flatten out the cloth, the image of the face gets very wide. Same with any other round object. Try it yourself, using tempera paint on an egg or something similar.
OK, I see what you're getting at and that is an interesting point. A couple of articles I read said that some finger(s) were too long, among other things, so that seems to be a different kind of image 'problem' than the one you are describing.
That's a puzzler about the problem of the 3D to 2D mapping. Assuming it was Jesus, I would posit that the Turin shroud was pulled fairly tight over and under the body, overtop of any wrappings underneath. And the energy pulse or whatever created the image was in line with gravitational field lines of force, up and down.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2005 : 12:58:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But you're saying that if it wasn't a forgery, somehow the church got hold of a cloth that had the image of *some* crucified man in it that wasn't Jesus, and they came to believe that it was Jesus? While I understand that there is no way to tell it was Jesus' image, it seems to be the most straightforward explanation to posit that it was Jesus, assuming it was not an artist's creation of course. I mean, how many crucified men would leave images like that on a cloth?
First, provide evidence that jesus ever existed in the first place.
Second, why the insitance that the alledged image on the alledged shroud was of a "crucified" man? How can you tell?
Third... the most straighforward explanation is to posit that is "was" jesus? Huh?
Did you totally miss the part of logic that requires a premise to be supported by evidence? Or the part that requires evidence to be able to withstand scrutiny? |
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
