|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 04/02/2007 : 02:12:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I don't think skepticism rules out beliefs. But I do think that it rules out clearly absurd beliefs (one which have mountains of evidence against them) and it also rules out beliefs treated equally to or treated as higher than facts. If a person holds beliefs tentatively, and is willing to discard them when clear evidence against them is presented, that person is utilizing skepticism.
It doesn't rule out beliefs. Those beliefs become part of that filter I mentioned in the above post. Hopefully those beliefs are as consistent with the evidence as possible.
|
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 02:15:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
...
Most people simply do not understand (doubt != denial), even many skeptics. Unfortunately a certain high-profile "skeptic" doesn't understand this either, hence certain confusions about levels of meta-skepticism. The two-value logic (affirmation or denial) is a construct designed to exclude skepticism from the equation. It is playing by rules stacked against us.
So what specifically is an example of your beef with Shermer?
I think it was a given Marf and I were allowing for 'belief' to change.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 02:18:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ejdalise
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
If a person holds beliefs tentatively, and is willing to discard them when clear evidence against them is presented, that person is utilizing skepticism.
That seems to imply that someone who holds a tentative belief in god until evidence is presented to the contrary is still classified as a skeptic.
I think it's a given these beliefs are based in reality in the first place. And some of us are content there is evidence against the existence of gods
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 02:27:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I'll give an example of some of the unskeptical thinking I do. If I have a strong intuition about something, and the intuitive insight does not violate any known facts or evidence, I tend to take such an intuition very seriously until presented with contrary evidence. This happens most often in dealing with strangers, or with politics.
More than two decades ago, my then wife and I got together with an artist friend and his girlfriend after the San Francisco 49ers had won the Superbowl. We drove together all over the City, listening to cars honk, and watching people celebrate on the streets. We finally parked near Columbus and Broadway, where a large celebratory crown had gathered. After a few minutes in this crowd, I had a very bad "premonition." I told the others that the happy crowd was soon going to turn very violent, and that we really should get the Hell out of Dodge at once.
They looked at me funny, but did as I asked. There was a bloody riot soon after we left. I do not consider myself psychic, but I believe there are unconscious cues that a person can pick up about crowds, and some of this may be instinctual.
Another case of intuition was my "secret dictatorship" hypothesis. But I was wrong there, and corrected my impression after the November elections. I was never more happy to be proven wrong!
My point is, sometimes, as in that mob, it just makers sense to go with your "instincts" or intuition, if they have served you well in the past, and if logic and evidence are not applicable, or would take too long to apply.
I think subconscious cues or outright evidence is what you are talking about here. Maybe you didn't do a good enough analysis on the evidence about the dictator, or collect enough data.
Sensing a drunken crowd is getting out of control or violent isn't rocket science. It's a basic event. Looking at the clues in government like rigged elections and media monopoly propaganda trends isn't so basic. We haven't seen a dictator take over in this country. It's like watching the genetic changes in the bird flu or the bulge on Mt St Helens before May 1980. You know something is happening, but you don't know what the big one looks like on the way there so you don't know how far down the road you are yet.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 04/02/2007 02:28:32 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 03:37:47 [Permalink]
|
ejd wrote: quote:
That seems to imply that someone who holds a tentative belief in god until evidence is presented to the contrary is still classified as a skeptic.
Yes, theists can be skeptics.
Skepticism also does not equal Rationalism, although the two are highly similar. I enjoyed Halfmooner's story about intuition helping him avoid a riot, but I don't think that doing that is "a very unskeptical thing to do".
I've always taken skepticism to be a bit broader than pure rationalism. At its core, skepticism is about wanting to know the closest thing to truth. We have science and rational thinking as our best ways for getting to the truth, but when there isn't enough info or time to properly use these tools, I think a skeptic would rightfully turn to other, less reliable, but still useful tools, such as instincts and intuition. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 05:11:34 [Permalink]
|
Be wrote, in part:quote:
I think subconscious cues or outright evidence is what you are talking about here. Maybe you didn't do a good enough analysis on the evidence about the dictator, or collect enough data.
My belief at the time was that if the hypothesis were correct (and I never fully bought into it myself), there would exist scant public evidence. Moot point, now. One thing I'd noted at the time was that if the November elections were not massively thrown by cheating, I'd withdraw the idea, as that would be a required part of any such "plot." And I did.
I don't think my sensing of a riot in advance was rocket science, either. I've known rocket scientists who would not have sensed it coming. What I think it was is a sort of animal cunning, a survival knack, and probably honed by my personal experiences in riots in the 60's. But it wasn't conscious, just a strong feeling.
Marf noted:quote:
Skepticism also does not equal Rationalism, although the two are highly similar. I enjoyed Halfmooner's story about intuition helping him avoid a riot, but I don't think that doing that is "a very unskeptical thing to do".
Well, I didn't say, "very"," but perhaps saying unskeptical was a bit stronger than the meaning I wanted to convey. It was certainly not a skeptical process, though, even though not in opposition to skepticism. It was some older, animal emergency mechanism that can kick in where skepticism isn't handy or quick enough.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 04/02/2007 05:12:58 |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 09:08:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
...
Most people simply do not understand (doubt != denial), even many skeptics. Unfortunately a certain high-profile "skeptic" doesn't understand this either, hence certain confusions about levels of meta-skepticism. The two-value logic (affirmation or denial) is a construct designed to exclude skepticism from the equation. It is playing by rules stacked against us.
So what specifically is an example of your beef with Shermer?
I think it was a given Marf and I were allowing for 'belief' to change.
Maybe you were; maybe you weren't. I don't know, until you tell me.
See "Why People Believe Wierd Things" And the "discover skepticism" segment of every "Skeptic" magazine.
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html
"...Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.
Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber."
Bolding mine.
I guess that excludes me. Strange kinda funky wierdness at the end there, but I feel vaguely insulted. My "intellectual cloud chamber" is fine, thank you very much. I have no difficulties with infinite meta-levels any more than I have problems with infinite numbers. But then, I don't define skepticism as denial. There is no decay through the progressions...
"No sacred cows" - except one of course.
Might as well just "Insert God here."
Shermer is still looking for religion... |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 13:13:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ejdalise
We may not "know" if this is real, but given absolutely no indications to the contrary, why even doubt it? Is the question even relevant?
The point was that there exists at least one more option, other than "I have evidence for X" or "I have faith in X," and the other option is "I have only pragmatic reasons for accpeting X."
I don't have faith that we live in a "real" universe, but I don't have any evidence that we do, either (in fact, it's impossible to test). My choice, to accept that there I am living in the real world, is based upon nothing more than the pragmatic outlook that for all intents and purposes, I can't devise any tests to determine any other sort of arrangement, either. Seeking them, or acting as if they were true, would simply be a waste of my time. |
- 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 - 04/02/2007 : 13:47:26 [Permalink]
|
To add to what Dave_W is saying:
There are some assumptions that must be taken on "faith".
The universe is real and has physical characteristics my senses are capable of objectively detecting.
For purely pragmatic reasons we must accept those assumptions or we fall into solipsism.
Everything else, however, must be supported by evidence.
I don't think there are any degrees of skepticism, but rather degrees of evidence. We assign a value of true, false, or anything between, based on the ammount and quality of evidence we have to support our claims.
The % of O2 in our atmosphere at sea level in aprox 20.9%. A claim for which we can provide solid, verfiable, repeatable evidence.
Extra terrestrial life exists. A claim we assign some chance of being true based on our observation of life on earth, the size and composition of the observable universe, and the presence of liquid water on other planets/moons in our own solar system.
The IPU is in my livingroom. A claim we assign a value of false to, based on the utter abscence of evidence.
|
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
13476 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 18:49:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ejdalise:
The thing is that at some point or other there is the possibility that a conflict arises between what ones believes without proof and the evaluation of an event, social or political issue, or even personal experience. Does one then follow the belief, or fall back on their skepticism?
How does one maintain a particular belief and keep it from influencing their view and interpretation of the world around them? And does the propensity to believe one thing without proof makes one susceptible to accept other beliefs at some later time?
My answer to your questions is I'm not sure. Here is what I think:
On social, political issues and personal experience, it's my opinion that all of the critical thinking we can muster (to minimize bias) will probably lead to an opinion based at least in part on our bias anyway. (And no, I don't mean the denial of obvious things like whether planes crashed into buildings and ultimately caused them to fall down because that scenario may fit someone's beliefs about the government, since that kind of thinking involves adding many additional, highly speculative, and unnecessary layers to what we have observed.) Otherwise, using the same data, we would all come to the same conclusions. But, even as skeptics, we don't. These areas remain rather fuzzy. Still, we do the best we can do as critical thinkers.
I wouldn't go ahead and draw conclusions about the likelihood of someone's personal beliefs coloring all areas of skeptical inquiry. Perhaps I wouldn't want a person who happens to be a strong theist testing the efficacy of prayer's ability to heal, but then there are many other areas of interest to skeptics that a God bias should not affect. And I wouldn't go assuming that a person can't be trusted because he or she may hold a belief that I don't find tenable. I mean, something like 40% of all scientists profess some belief in God.
As for a skeptic who holds a belief that I don't find tenable being susceptible to becoming more credulous about other things later, I don't know. I would need to see some numbers to convince me one way or the other…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 19:19:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude:
I don't think there are any degrees of skepticism, but rather degrees of evidence.
Almost everyone has some skepticism in them. If that were not the case then everyone would be at the mercy of scammers. There are most certainly degrees of skepticism just as there are degrees of belief and credulous behavior.
For advocates of critical thinking, which is what we are, you may be right…
|
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 - 04/02/2007 : 19:41:20 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
quote:
Almost everyone has some skepticism in them. If that were not the case then everyone would be at the mercy of scammers. There are most certainly degrees of skepticism just as there are degrees of belief and credulous behavior.
It may be semantics, but skepticism is (basically) the critical analysis of claims. The degree to which we accept a claim is based on our interpretation of the evidence.
The ability to evaluate evidence does indeed come in varying degrees though.
I think we are basically saying the same thing.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 23:40:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Can this be applied to other claims? We can accept X so long as there is no contradicting evidence that X isn't true? Certainly that isn't the case, so why then does it apply to this claim and not others?
We live, breathe, eat, the other thing, drink, the other other thing, sleep, etc. etc.
When we talk about reality, we have a slew of consistent sensory input and feedback. I fail to see how reality can be equated with a "claim". Then again, I don't have other people's ability to discuss the minutia of each word in a sentence.
And why do people want to steer the discussion about a perfectly good and valid question into a discussion about something else. In this case, whether "reality" is real. Sure, a non-skeptic (and some drug users) can sit and ponder on the subject for hours on end, but again, the question is why?
Do you sit and examine your hand and contemplate if it is really your hand or not? I would suggest those with such inclinations are probably of not much help in solving world, society, and most of all their own personal problems (i.e. "Honey, the bills are due." . . ."Well, are they really bills, or just manifestations of our own perceived reality onto the social construct of shared perceptions?" . . . "Honey, if you don't knock it off and write the checks, you don't get any for the next three months. . . . "Oh, yeah! The bills! Let me get right on that"
The statement you challenged was part of a paragraph dealing with a specific topic. Questioning whether reality is real. Are you telling me that you are seriously doubting reality? Because if you are, than my question stands: why? And what are you questioning, exactly? Your sensory inputs?
ejd
|
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 00:17:47 [Permalink]
|
[size=2]quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The point was that there exists at least one more option, other than "I have evidence for X" or "I have faith in X," and the other option is "I have only pragmatic reasons for accpeting X."
I don't have faith that we live in a "real" universe, but I don't have any evidence that we do, either (in fact, it's impossible to test). My choice, to accept that there I am living in the real world, is based upon nothing more than the pragmatic outlook that for all intents and purposes, I can't devise any tests to determine any other sort of arrangement, either. Seeking them, or acting as if they were true, would simply be a waste of my time.
(see my other response regarding the reality discussion)
This whole line of discussion stemmed from your statement that faith vs. evidence is a false dychotomy. I still don't think you have answered my original question as to what in your opinion is a skeptic.
Perhaps I am ignorant, or just limited in my thinking, but aren't you saying what I already said? Namely, it is futile endeavor to try and prove reality. Why would anyone even consider it? You just accept it as a matter of course because you have nothing else.
The discussion about "proof/belief/pragmatic acceptance of reality" is a made up argument because we take the physical world around us at face value. One could almost say that reality is it's own evidence, at least as far as we can discern.
In which case the only purpose for this argument is to give "proof" to your statement of faith vs evidence being a false dichotomy. Again, in my limited and simple mind, it does no such thing. It does bring a pedantic tone to the discussion, while adding nothing to it.
The question is simple. In your own words, what is a skeptic?
ejd
|
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 00:54:42 [Permalink]
|
Hmmm . . .
I just re-read all my posts on this thread. Perhaps I'm coming across a little harsh, and I seem to definitively have drifted in the area that, if not in, is at least in the vicinity of confrontation.
I'm not trying to sway anyone in their own opinion. By the same token, I'm not likely to be swayed in my opinion. I put forth my belief that a skeptic has to be consistent in his/her approach to all manner of claims and beliefs. Including his/her own.
The original question was fairly simple and, I thought, clear. What is a skeptic? Or, what defines a skeptic?
In the interest of getting open and honest answers, I won't challenge or respond to any posts. They stand as people's own opinions, and as such they are likely unassailable.
Sorry if I have unnecessarily raised any one's blood pressure.
ejd
|
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What is a skeptic?
