My friend Karen Stollznow has written a nice, compact synopsis of skepticism on her blog. I like it! It has some NSFW language, in case you have delicate sensibilities. But, if you do have delicate sensibilities, I’m guessing skepticism may not be for you. It takes a lot of personal fortitude to withstand the usual slings and arrows from people who prefer fantasy to reality, of course.
But you know what? There’s a lot of stuff about the Universe that’s not much fun to think about, either. Scary stuff, unpleasant stuff, depressing stuff, ugly stuff. Skepticism makes you face that starkly, frankly, and unflinchingly.
But on the plus side, you get to see the man behind the curtain (or the lack thereof). You get to understand the secret, you get to perceive the underlying cause, you get to grok the intricate connections, you get to absorb the unfiltered beauty.
You get to see things the way they are, and not the way you wish they were. That’s skepticism, and it’s a good thing.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
“You get to see things the way they are, and not the way you wish they were. That’s skepticism, and it’s a good thing.”
This…. This statement right here is the reason you’re my first and last read of the day. Your drive to blow the cob-webs from the eyes of everyone, your desire to make science approachable and fun and your tireless work debunking the woo have inspired not only myself, but so many others, to keep “fighting the good fight” and make anti-science and sciencephobia a thing of the past.
….but just one quick thing…
I think the idea of a maladjusted, bi-polar, bloodthirsty, genocidal Sky-Pixie that watches everything I do FAR scarier than any black hole or gamma ray burst. At least with the GRB I know what to expect. That God guy keeps contradicting himself, and his various fan clubs seem to have a hard time making up their minds about what’s gonna piss him off.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
To me, facing that stuff and dealing with it unflinchingly is a positive. Waiting around for some possibly imaginary man in the sky to grab you by the scruff of the neck to haul you out when things get bad is nothing more of a cop out.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Yes a nice and succinct wee blog post. I agree – love the bit about the “profound moments” because it reminds me of all the times I’ve learnt something that increases my understanding of the world and the universe at large – essentially when the light bulb comes on and you go “Ah ha! I understand”.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
I don’t usually see the words “keeping an open mind” and Skepticism on the same page, or in the same mind.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I am absolutely amazed by all the conspiracy theories out there in the world: Conspiracies about 9-11 cover-ups, moon hoaxes, the JFK assassination, FDR knowing in advance about Pearl Harbor, Princess Diana being murdered, etc. And I have to wonder where all these various conspiracies come from.
The only possible explanation is a vast government conspiracy to create ridiculous conspiracies.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Sagan said it the best in “The Demon Huanted World”
“It is better to except reality as it is then to persist in delusion, no matter how satisfying”.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
woodguard – keeping an open mind is a virtue, but as the engineer James Oberg said, not so open that your brain falls out.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
An open mind is not an uncritical mind. All the evidence is subject to inspection. But no evidence can be discarded out of hand unless it has been examined and found wanting before. In other words, if I have already looked at your evidence and found it full of holes – the next time I see that evidence, I’m likely to remember that.
Bring me evidence my prior analysis was incorrect, or bring in new evidence, and I am willing to reanalyze my position and possibly change my conclusions.
When the claim that the Trade Center Towers fell at the speed of free fall I found some video timed the collapse, did the math and concluded they did not fall at the free fall rate. The next time someone made that claim, I didn’t need to do the math again.
An uncritical mind is likely to accept the first convincing sounding argument (they fell at free fall – if they feel at free fall it must have been a demolition…) and take it at face value – whether the argument is actually factual or not.
That’s my take, but don’t take my word for it – check it out for yourself.
jbs
February 5th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
You can see Karen interview Ted Gwin, ‘The Blind Mystic’ on the next TANK Vodcast, out of the 14.Feb on youtube.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Lugosi
The only possible explanation is a vast government conspiracy to create ridiculous conspiracies.
Located across from the Ministry of Silly Walks, and two doors from the Department of Redundancy Department.
J/P=?
February 5th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
My blood is becoming greener and my ears pointier as we speak.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Just remember that if you ever find yourself standing in a crowd and chanting “Yes! Yes! We must see the world for what it is and think independently!”…you’re probably doing the skepticism thing wrong.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
[I]I think the idea of a maladjusted, bi-polar, bloodthirsty, genocidal Sky-Pixie that watches everything I do FAR scarier than any black hole or gamma ray burst. At least with the GRB I know what to expect. That God guy keeps contradicting himself, and his various fan clubs seem to have a hard time making up their minds about what’s gonna piss him off.[/I]
kate, right on.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Judging from some of the people who’ve called themselves “skeptics”, I’ve decided a skeptic is: anyone who has an opinion about anything.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:11 am
Can someone enlighten me: What does NSFW mean?
February 6th, 2008 at 5:17 am
Not Suitable For Work.
I never understood the reasoning behind labelling “bad” language NSFW. The sentiment behind the language, maybe (and that’s far from NSFW in this particular case), but labelling the language itself just sounds like a cheap substitute for actual thinking.
(Not that I’m blaming Phil for this. I’m blaming bad word deleted parents and bad employers.)
February 6th, 2008 at 5:24 am
John Paradox said:
“Located across from the Ministry of Silly Walks, and two doors from the Department of Redundancy Department.”
Ah, yes, but you omitted the other relevant department:
Next door to the Department of Redundnacy Department is the Redundancy Department of Redundancy.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:25 am
The BA said:
“Try some skepticism; you’ll like it.”
I’m really not sure about this, Phil. How about you show me some evidence, huh?
February 6th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Kate says:
[[I think the idea of a maladjusted, bi-polar, bloodthirsty, genocidal Sky-Pixie that watches everything I do FAR scarier than any black hole or gamma ray burst.]]
Yeah, that does sound scary. Fortunately we have God, instead.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:44 am
@Barton -
When you say “we”, you mean…
February 6th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Phil, well said. I am currently re-reading Terry Pratchett’s Discworld novels, and in Wee Free Men he refers to First Sight (along with Second Thoughts) as a power witches have – to see what is really there, not just what ought to be there.
Sounds like skepticism to me.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:30 am
BArton: “Your feelings do you justice but bury them deep inside. They could be made to work for the Dark side,,,”
OK, I stole that,,,again,,,but,,,the whole point of skepticism is to separate fantasy from fiction. The essence of mysticism is to be a spirit warrior, to understand, rationally and fearlessly, the way things really are, regardless of whether or not there is anyone else in this chaotic universe that gives a toot,,,besides you,,,but YOU are a good starting point.
A real God would encourage it’s creation to KNOW the truth, without relying on the adamant proclamations of elders. Though I have to admit, since I now qualify as an elder, I have a vested interest in having people listen to me, so my advice is to follow the music(of the spheres) where ever it may lead,,,
Gary 7
February 6th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Barton:
“We”? …. “Have”? ….
When you refer to “We”, please be specific. I’d like to know if I’m communicating with one person referring to themselves as “We”, or if I’m dealing with 6 billion people, or some number in between.
You do not “have” god. If you “had” god, you could open the cage/box/ark of the covenant where it’s being kept and show it off to the whole darn world. You believe, Barton. You do not “have”.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Gary writes:
[[A real God would encourage it’s creation to KNOW the truth]]
And he does. BTW, the truth is a person. “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the father, but by me,” said Jesus (John 14:6).
February 6th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Kate says:
[[You do not “have” god. If you “had” god, you could open the cage/box/ark of the covenant where it’s being kept and show it off to the whole darn world.]]
Non sequitur. The existence of God does not require that God be a physically demonstrable object.
[[ You believe, Barton. You do not “have”.]]
You don’t have, because you don’t believe.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:52 am
in case you have delicate sensibilities.
Pfft! I don’t have *any* sensibilities!
Ha!
…
Wow, that came out wrong…
It is better to except reality
Except it from what?
I tease…
just sounds like a cheap substitute for actual thinking.
Well, here’s how it works as far as I can understand it. The fear is that some hypersensitive person may see the NSFW content on your computer screen and get all offended, and then hire a lawyer to sue over a “hostile work environment” or some other piffle. Another situation is the same, but replace “hypersensitive person” with “opportunist”.
So I can’t really blame the company. I can, however, blame the legal profession. They will be our eventual undoing, mark my words. Go ahead. Mark them. I’ll wait.
Same thing with football pools. We used to have them every week. Even people like me who are bored by sports would participate. Now we can;t because someone might send a copy to the State government, and the State government would fine the company for allowing an “illegal lottery” to exist. Again, lawyers, but this time in political positions.
Think I’m exaggerating?
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/californian/8_73_412_28_07.txt
February 6th, 2008 at 9:59 am
OK… well…
I believe that you don’t have to believe in order to have, whatever it is you believe you need or want to have.
There. Are we all clear now?
February 6th, 2008 at 10:28 am
The social bit of skepticism (I.E don’t believe everything you are told) is fine by me.
I don’t accept the groundless assertion of naturalist/positivist ontology and epistemology the surfaces in statements like “You get to see things the way they are, and not the way you wish they were”.
Modern science, to the extent that it’s practitioners are aware of what they are doing, make no statements as to what is real. Only about what works. It is nothing if not pragmatic.
Scientific truth is a fluid thing, in a state of constant improvement, so to stand up at some random point in time (like the BA does) and proclaim that *this* is reality, is not reasonable.
We don’t know what is real, or even if the concept has a meaning at all, so skepticism, if it is to be more than another socially constructed world view, has center around what *works* as well. Not around what is true or real.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:45 am
“It takes a lot of personal fortitude to withstand the usual slings and arrows from people who prefer fantasy to reality, of course.”
Gosh, I was thinking it was the other way around. Sorry Phil, but I gotta disagree with you on that one. It’s easier to believe in stuff that you can see with proofs, than it is to believe in stuff that you feel with your heart. And there’s a lot of slings and arrows around here pointing at the folks that are critical thinkers and still believe in a higher power.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:46 am
@Zoot…
What a bunch of philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Yeah, yeah… and if a tree falls in the forest and no-one is there to hear it… blah blah blah. Let’s not get hung up on the metaphysical. That’s another topic altogether.
The problem you describe is one of your perception or your definition of reality. Not mine. For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll use the commonly accepted definition of “real”, that is “not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory”. That definition works more than well enough for this discussion of skepticism.
BA’s phrasing of “you get to see things the way they are, and not the way you wish they were” is a perfectly valid layman’s description of skepticism.
Or, if it makes you feel better to remove the whole metaphysical “what’s really real, man” factor from the equation, try it rephrased this way: “you get to see the way things happen, why they happen and the way they actually work, and not the way you wish they worked”.
That better?
February 6th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Why, Zoot, it sounds like you are skeptic about skepticism. Is this allowed?
February 6th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Based on Moon Hoax believers, 9/11 “Truthers” and UFO lovers, Skeptic actually means “never believing the Government”.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:53 am
@Darth Curt -
“It’s easier to believe in stuff that you can see with proofs, than it is to believe in stuff that you feel with your heart.”
Couldn’t disagree more. The reason, I believe, that religion of all kinds throughout history has played, and still plays, such a prominent role is because the opposite is true, and people find it easier to accept “stuff that you feel with your heart”, IMHO.
It was far easier for me, growing up, to simply believe what I was taught in my Christian upbringing without question. There was no effort involved. It was much more difficult for me to accept the reality (sorry, Zoot) of the world around me and accept that some of the things I was taught to accept were just flat out wrong.
Based on my own personal experience, the process of being skeptical was much more difficult than just believing.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I found this site through its entertaining bad science movie reviews and have since visited regularly for probably too long. Sure there’s name-dropping and back-patting but there’s also a heck of a lot of great science news and educated insight which makes the afore mentioned flaws incredibly easy to overlook.
What is starting to bug me, though, is zealous the site has become in promoting skepticism. Please don’t get me wrong, I’m all for it…but it almost seems as if the skeptics have grouped together and wish to spread their good word like it’s some sort of religion which, I thought, was kind of the very thing they were against.
It won’t stop me from visiting, of course, but every time I read something about some skeptic blog or society I can’t help but feel that I’m being preached too like some Sunday morning TV evangelists.
Please don’t take this as a flame as it’s just meant to be a personal opinion and observation.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Celtic >> A little better (replace why with how)
..but in your post you are still using absolutes which forces the discussion into metaphysical territory.
And that’s exactly what I am arguing against.
And it’s not that hard, and it’s not mumbo jumbo. Just remember that every proposition is subject to being falsified. Every one of them. That is the rational stance.
Science it self is an unproven hypothesis, awaiting falsification.
(Your definition of reality is circular by the way.)
February 6th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
@Zoot
My definition of reality comes from Merriam – Webster. Take it up with them.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Zoot has a point. The practical endeavor, science, is based on the epistemological theory, empiricism — and you can’t prove empiricism is true. It has to be accepted on faith, taken as a premise. Thus you can’t escape metaphysics. Those who say they are operating free of metaphysics are usually enslaved to an old metaphysic they’ve never thought about clearly. I can’t list the number of people I run into on the internet who think they’ve come up with some new and daring insight that can actually be traced to Nietzsche or Rousseau.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Zoot/Barton:
The assumptions are fewer, and revolve around testable hypotheses. It is assumed that observation is repeatable, and that experiments are repeatable. On the macro scale and in general this is true. It is assumed that the observations would be similar displaced in space or time (ergo everywhere in the universe).
That’s it.
What specific sequence of events occurred in the past are inferred from evidence; this serves to narrow down possibles from either impossibles or untestables.
While this does not stem from a pure philosophical absolute truth, it is instead as Zoot put it “pragmatic.”
When stepping into this framework, inference rejects ideas that are impossible (not improbable) or untestable.
Science does not involve untestable ideas because it is pragmatic, and which flavor of afterlife you choose is of no concern to it until you postulate a physical weight for the soul or geographic location of heaven.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Pat posts:
[[The assumptions are fewer, and revolve around testable hypotheses.]]
No. Empiricism is not empirically testable. It’s a pure assumption. A premise.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Zoot said: ..but in your post you are still using absolutes which forces the discussion into metaphysical territory.
No, you only think Celtic is using absolutes, and define your interpretation as being metaphysical. Perhaps you are only listening to songs from your cat.
In short, “Been there, seen that, the book was better than the movie.” You’re offering an old, tired, and extremely hackneyed existentialist argument. The problem with it is, literally everything, and I mean both of those words with absolute accuracy, literally everything has no meaning whatsoever unless you assume you can sense a physical existence.
And once you have allowed for that, science drops into place very neatly.
You can consider speeding trucks a figment of your imagination if you think that’s useful in any way. For myself, I’ll continue to look both ways before crossing the street.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Cairnarvon: concerning NSFW words. I have always tried to argue the same thing, that it is the meaning and expression behinds the words that are used that make them inappropriate, not the words themselves. I’ve never really understood why we feel that using certain four letter words as simple exclamations is considered horrific while calling someone a “poopy-head” is okay. The former is just someone rattling off words, while the latter is meant to be offensive. But that’s just me, and apparently I’m either in the minority, or in the silent majority on that.
Darth Curt: I disagree, I think that for most people, it’s easier to believe in what they feel than what they see, partly because what they feel has usually been ingrained in them from a young age, while what we see tends to change as we learn more. Is this not part of the debate between fundamentalist and skeptics – that the fundamentalist claim that science changes shows that it is not a reliable as faith, which does not change.
“And there’s a lot of slings and arrows around here pointing at the folks that are critical thinkers and still believe in a higher power.”
I’ve noticed this has been a growing trend, especially since merge of the BAUT BB. But then, I mainly hung out in the moan hoax section on the BABB, so I may have just missed it. With all the attempts of creationist pushing ID, I can’t say that I blame them.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Barton:
Read again carefully.
The assumptions are fewer, and revolve around testable hypotheses.
The assumptions are still assumptions, and are not completely testable by themselves. That would presume we could simultaneously measure infinity: an impossibility. Outside, by definition, the scope of science. The assumptions are to wit untestable, so science is not subject to itself as a methodology, because it derives from an untestable assumption.
The assumptions involved revolve around the idea that whatever is proposed is testable in this framework, and only applies to this framework’s assumptions. Testable hypotheses.
Other frameworks that are equally untestable do not therefore fall under science. The assumption that when you look away the cone out of your vision is filled with observation-sensitive camambert cheese that disappears without a trace is untestable: unscientific. Not universally untrue, but not scientific: not subject to the testable framework.
It’s assumption is pragmatic: it involves the least amount of simultaneous measurement and the fewest derived assumptions, and removes from the truly infinitely infinite of ideas (defined philosophically by whatever can be imagined /is/) those which are untestable.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Barton, science does not necessitate empiricism or assumptions. It’s just that the way it’s described around here does. As long as nothing is treated as though being above falsification, there is no problem.
If on the other hand, you do as Just Al suggests, and build an argument from an assumption, you are on shaky ground. (I.E, X is real because stuff is like real, you know.)
In science, the problems and solutions exist in the same cognitive space, so to speak, if I want a machine that goes bing, and I have a method to make a machine that goes bing, all is well. The ultimate nature of the machine in ontological terms is not relevant. Whether is real, illusion or a projection does not matter as long as it goes bing when I want it to. Meaning does not enter into it.
(This is Popper’s critical rationalism btw. not existentialism)
Metaphysics are not relevant until someone says the machine is real.
___
PROTIP:
The reason this happens a lot these days is that there are so many debates with people who believe in an absolute reality as defined by a holy book. They say: “this is real”, and the opponent responds “no, this is real” and in so doing inheriting the definition of real as something absolute.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
BPL:
Science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature. Empiricism is A theory of knowledge which emphasizes aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, ESPECIALLY as derived via deliberate experimental methods. Theories (and hypotheses) must be tested against OBSERVATIONS of the natural world, and not rest only on a priori reasoning or intuition or revelation. There is nothing about the method of scientific empiricism which needs “proof;” it is a “method” only, and as such seeks to arrive at a demonstrable truth based upon observations of reality. No “faith” is involved; in fact, faith is deliberately rejected in the application of the method. (I’ve got no way to italicize or underline, hence the CAPS.)
February 6th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Hats off to Karen – well said and thanks for sharing it.
I’m wondering about this commenter’s take on Sagan:
“I only have a problem with your choice of Carl Sagan. Upon the matter of UFOs he is not a skeptic, he is totally in opposiiton of looking at the phenomena with neutral eyes and mind, If one has a predisposed position about somehting at all times, no matter what body of evidence is presented to you, you are not a skeptic. You have already positioned yoursel at one sid eof the question, no matter what.”
It makes me feel like pulling out the episode of Cosmos where he talks about UFOs. /-:
February 6th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Zoot said -
“In science, the problems and solutions exist in the same cognitive space, so to speak, if I want a machine that goes bing, and I have a method to make a machine that goes bing, all is well. The ultimate nature of the machine in ontological terms is not relevant. Whether is real, illusion or a projection does not matter as long as it goes bing when I want it to. Meaning does not enter into it.
(This is Popper’s critical rationalism btw. not existentialism)
Metaphysics are not relevant until someone says the machine is real.”
Ack… somebody hose me off… I’m dripping in existentialism… err… critical rationalism.
So round and round we go. If you’re going to use Popper’s critical rationalism, you are very much describing skepticism! While philosophical in nature as to the way it describes the scientific method, I’m not sure it deals with, or is meant to deal with, reality per se in an ontological medium. Popper’s critical rationalism, at least the way I understand it, dealt mainly with empirical science, and postulates that while we may not have ultimate answers, knowledge of a thing is possible through the use of conjecture and refutation… essentially weeding out the bad ideas. It states that all knowledge has an inherent level of uncertainty. And I understand that as it pertains to science. Science is based on a principal of falsification. You propose a theory based on observation and critical thought, and then it’s science’s job to falsify it and refine it. Critical rationalism accepts that truth IS attainable, which seems to contradict what you are saying.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
If I say:
I reject your metaphysics and substitute my own
Would you get the joke?
If we take the position that nothing is real and nothing is knowable, and posit that all of existence is an illusion, then there is no point in knowing anything and no point in science or religion or living or dying. In fact, it seems to me that by such supposition metaphysics must be meaningless and of no use – certainly it is no use to the rest of us trying to operate in what we consider the real world. Science, however, is quite useful.
jbs
February 6th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
It’s a truth always waiting to be superseded. Scientific truth is the best candidate for truth at any given moment. Popper follows Wittgenstein in disregarding absolutes all together, so truth is always relative, whether the speaker knows it or not, so to speak.
And sure, you could leave things there, and say, since there is only relative truth, that’s what the word truth must refer to in any circumstance, but I get the distinct impression from the BA that this is not what he means when he promotes his reality concept.
He tends to lean on it pretty heavily, so much so that Wittgenstein’s escape hatch no longer cuts it. His message is pretty clear in saying that the current functionally defined reality is the ultimate reality. (Congrats on the omiscience)
And no, Popper doesn’t deal much with ontology, at least to my knowledge, but the entire point of his stuff is that he doesn’t need to. As long the focus is on falsification as opposed to prof, it does not matter what is real or true (in the absolute sense). Only what works, and that can always be replaced with something that works better.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
@ Zoot -
OK, well I won’t speak for the BA where it comes to differentiating between what his definition of reality is and your contention that reality itself is impossible to define… I’m sure he’s more than capable of verbalizing his thoughts on that his own self.
Let’s just say that for the purposes of seperating ideas and theories that are supported by scientific method from “alternative” theories such as ID, moon hoax, the TU24 hullabaloo, etc., skepticism as described and defined in his post is, in fact, a good and necessary thing. And therein lies the point, I think.
I do enjoy a good philosophical / existential debate, though. Well met.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Barton said:
[[And he does. BTW, the truth is a person. “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the father, but by me,” said Jesus (John 14:6).]]
Yeah, but what does it mean? It’s like the whole concept of the trinity (for example). It just doesn’t make sense. The religious love throwing around supposedly pithy comments and quotes from the bible or from “holy” people and end with a big implied “so there”. Yet most of the time the quote is literally nonsense. Hymns are especially good examples of this kind of meaninglessness. Look up your favourite hymns and try to read them without scratching your head and going “huh?”.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Next door to the Department of Redundancy Department is the Redundancy Department of Redundancy.
I used to work in the DRD’s Bureau of Repetition.
I used to work in the DRD’s Bureau of Repetition.
J/P=?
J/P=?
February 7th, 2008 at 4:11 am
>>If we take the position that nothing is real and nothing is knowable, and posit that all of existence is an illusion, then there is no point in knowing anything and no point in science or religion or living or dying. /jbs
If you are thirsty, Ice tea still works, be it illusion, reality or projection. You don’t have to know it’s ultimate nature for it to work.
To borrow an argument from Sam Harris, if assuming that the was a diamond buried in your back yard gave your life meaning, would that be an argument for it being true?
Celtic >> Fair enough.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Will M writes:
[[Science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature. Empiricism is A theory of knowledge which emphasizes aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, ESPECIALLY as derived via deliberate experimental methods. Theories (and hypotheses) must be tested against OBSERVATIONS of the natural world, and not rest only on a priori reasoning or intuition or revelation. There is nothing about the method of scientific empiricism which needs “proof;” it is a “method” only, and as such seeks to arrive at a demonstrable truth based upon observations of reality. No “faith” is involved; in fact, faith is deliberately rejected in the application of the method.]]
You need faith that empirical evidence is valid. All arguments have premises. There are no exceptions.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Zoot says:
[[Scientific truth is the best candidate for truth at any given moment.]]
“Best” in what way?
February 7th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Shane writes:
[[Yeah, but what does it mean? It’s like the whole concept of the trinity (for example). It just doesn’t make sense.]]
It makes plenty of sense. What’s nonsensical about it?
[[ The religious love throwing around supposedly pithy comments and quotes from the bible]]
If they’re Christian or Jewish. They might be Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Animist.
[[ or from “holy” people and end with a big implied “so there”. Yet most of the time the quote is literally nonsense.]]
Do you understand what the word “nonsense” means?
[[ Hymns are especially good examples of this kind of meaninglessness. Look up your favourite hymns and try to read them without scratching your head and going “huh?”.]]
That’s how I normally read hymns. I think that’s probably how nearly everybody but you reads hymns.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:24 am
BPL >> Best in the pragmatic sense. The statement that works the best is true until something that works better comes along. Like I said, science is nothing if not pragmatic.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:07 am
[...] [via Bad Astronomy Blog] [...]
February 7th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
The original article by Karen Stollznow had these comments:
“Skepticism isn’t only about science, the paranormal and pseudoscience.”
“My point is, try skepticism, whatever you want to call it and however you want to do it.”
So now I am totally confused by what the concept of skepticism is. Is it tied to science? Is it an overarching philosophy which embraces science? I am apparently enjoined to “try skepticism” however I “want to do it.” That does not seem to be a very clear instruction. If I had bought a bicycle from Walmart with such unclear instructions I would be inclined to return it.
So perhaps we can get the BA himself to answer 3 simple questions:
1.) What is skepticism?
2.) What is the relationship of skepticism to science?
4.) What are the philosophical underpinnings (if any) of skepticism?
Without answers to these three questions all this talk about skepticism reminds me of TV advertisements: “new and improved” (i.e., meaningless gibberish)
February 7th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
No, BPL, that is NOT the case. In science, the basic “truism” is that EVERY idea has a tentative nature – if the observational data indicate an error, then the idea must be abandoned. But as been pointed out sooo many times before on this site, a belief is typically NOT subject to test; it must be taken on FAITH.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
I see that BPL has moved from Time Magazine’s- Eye on Science blog to spread his arrogant certitude elsewhere on the blog-a-sphere. He maintains that his religious beliefs are unassailable and offers absolutely no proof to back up his assertions.
Provisonal faith in the results of empirical knowledge is not analogous to a person who places all his bets on the unverifiable writings of one book, comforting myths and superstitions.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
me: [[Yeah, but what does it mean? It’s like the whole concept of the trinity (for example). It just doesn’t make sense.]]
Barton: It makes plenty of sense. What’s nonsensical about it?
One being made up of 3 beings but it isn’t polytheism.
me: [[ The religious love throwing around supposedly pithy comments and quotes from the bible]]
Barton: [[If they’re Christian or Jewish. They might be Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Animist.]]
Or the Bhagavadgiitaa or the koran or the Buddha-Dharma. I’m not sure there is much written scripture when it comes to animists but we can throw animist mythology into to mix too I suppose. The religious don’t tend to throw quotes around from each others texts though.
me: [[ or from “holy” people and end with a big implied “so there”. Yet most of the time the quote is literally nonsense.]]
Barton: Do you understand what the word “nonsense” means?
Yep. Absurd, fatuous, of little or no use, no sense or meaning. Take your pick.
me: [[ Hymns are especially good examples of this kind of meaninglessness. Look up your favourite hymns and try to read them without scratching your head and going “huh?”.]]
Barton: That’s how I normally read hymns. I think that’s probably how nearly everybody but you reads hymns.
I may be a little obtuse but I don’t get what you mean?
To clarify what I meant though. When listening to hymns read the lyrics. It is nearly all nonsense and meaningless platitudes. The BBC has a show called “Songs of Praise”. They subtitle the songs so you can sing along too (holy karaoke). Probably the worst thing they could do really because it just leaves one wondering “what the hell?”. Many songs have lyrics where the meaning may not be very clear (I am the walrus goo goo ga joob) but hymns take this to an entirely new level.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Barton said:
You need faith that empirical evidence is valid.
That’s funny. And we were only just talking about nonsense.
Thanks.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I’m sure others could answer these questions better than me, but I’ll give it a shot.
Tom Marking asked: “1.) What is skepticism?”
The application of critical thinking to everyday living; the search for evidence to support assertions; the willingness to reject assertions made without evidence.
“2.) What is the relationship of skepticism to science?”
Good science should involve the skeptical attitude: to develop theories which are supported by the evidence, rather than searching for evidence to support a previously chosen theory; the willingness to abandon a theory if new evidence is found which contradicts it.
“3.) What are the philosophical underpinnings (if any) of skepticism?”
An embracing of empiricism – that the universe is real, that the laws which govern its existence exist separately from us and are consistent across space and time, and that it’s possible for us to learn about them.
All of this doesn’t require us to adopt a skeptical attitude to *everything*. I support the Collingwood football club for largely emotional reasons, not because I sought out evidence which satisfied me that they were the best team to support.
But there are many aspects of life which benefit from a skeptical attitude, whether buying a house, determining which treatment I should use for a medical condition, or deciding whether to buy a book claiming that a Chinese fleet sailed around the world in 1421.
My skepticism has led me to reject a range of beliefs, such as in a range of alternate medical practices like homeopathy and chiropractic, in alien abduction theories, and in a range of conspiracy theories such as those related to the Moon landings, the assassination of President Kennedy or the September 11 attacks.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Peter B wrote:
I support the Collingwood football club for largely emotional reasons, not because I sought out evidence which satisfied me that they were the best team to support.
You almost had me until you got to the bit about Collingwood. Heathen.
C’arn the Bloods.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:39 am
That is not the dictionary definition of it. I quote from the Meriam Webster New Collegiate Dictionary:
“skepticism: 1a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain, 1b: the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics, 2: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object, 3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, or revelation)”
No mention of critical thinking there. BTW, your items 1 and 2 are contradictory:
1.) “the search for evidence to support assertions”
2.) “rather than searching for evidence to support a previously chosen theory”
I’ll have more to say on the subject shortly.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Tom -
You are really reaching, once again, for the sake of making an argument apparenatly just for argument’s sake.
“No mention of critical thinking there.”
Are you kidding me? Because the words “critical thinking” don’t appear in the definition doesn’t mean that it isn’t clearly implied by the definition. Read it again… “the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics”… do you need “critical thinking” to be added to that phrase for you to understand that it is required for a “crticism characterisitc”?
OK… not good enough for you? If you are going to quote reference materials like the dictionary, here’s one from Encyclopedia Britannica:
“skepticism – the philosophical attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas. Skeptics have challenged the adequacy or reliability of these claims by asking what they are based upon or what they actually establish.”
Read that last sentence again. Now, I know it doesn’t _say_ critical thinking there, but I’m fairly sure you can figure out that it’s pretty clearly implied.
“BTW, your items 1 and 2 are contradictory:
1.) “the search for evidence to support assertions”
2.) “rather than searching for evidence to support a previously chosen theory” ”
That’s quote mining, Tom, and that’s dirty pool. You took a piece of Peter’s second point, out of context, and held it up as a contradiction, instead of taking the quote as a whole. When read in its entirety, it makes perfect sense and is in no way contradictory to his first point.
So lastly, I’d like to ask you… what is your point anyhow? Is your point to say that skepticism does not require critical thinking? Really? Or if that’s not your point well then…??????
February 8th, 2008 at 9:02 am
G’day Tom
I warned you that others might answer your questions better than me.
Allow me to explain in a little more detail. Also, please note I’m not trying to snow you with sophistry or fancy terminology. Instead, I’m trying to explain the philosophy I try to live by as well as I can, and it can sometimes be tricky to put thoughts into words.
Yes, you’re right that my answers to questions 1 and 2 were contradictory. A better wording for the answer to question 1 might be: “The application of critical thinking to everyday living; examining the evidence for claims made by others; the willingness to reject assertions made without evidence.” However, I stand by my answer to question 2 – good science should involve the skeptical attitude: developing theories which are supported by the evidence, not searching for evidence to reach a pre-determined conclusion.
The more I think about it, the more I get the idea that skepticism involves two separate processes, and I’ve been conflating the two. One process is using skepticism to assess someone else’s claims. The other process is using skepticism to assess your own thought processes.
When assessing someone else’s claims, the skeptical attitude involves looking at the claim, then seeing whether the evidence supports that claim. If it does, then you can provisionally accept the claim. If not, then you can provisionally reject the claim. (“This car can do 1750 miles per gallon.” “Okay, let’s put in a measured amount of fuel and see how far we go.”)
When assessing your own thought processes, the skeptical attitude involves collecting all the evidence and using that evidence to reach a conclusion, not starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence to support that conclusion. (“The Apollo Moon landings were faked. I’ll look at the photos and see what evidence I can find in them that they weren’t taken on the Moon.”)
Skepticism in general involves a lot more of the first activity than the second – we see people make all sorts of claims, and we assess the evidence provided. In some cases, the claims are accepted, and in others the claims are rejected. And, as Karen points out in the posting which started all this, it has applications in everyday life.
Looking at the dictionary definitions you quoted, I’d call the skeptical attitude most similar to definition 1b, “suspended judgement”. Judgement is suspended, not permanently, but until evidence is provided. So how do you make a judgement? Use critical thinking to assess the evidence.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Will M. writes:
[[No, BPL, that is NOT the case. In science, the basic “truism” is that EVERY idea has a tentative nature - if the observational data indicate an error, then the idea must be abandoned. But as been pointed out sooo many times before on this site, a belief is typically NOT subject to test; it must be taken on FAITH.]]
Right. Like the belief that empiricism is valid, which can’t be proved empirically.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:41 am
panicum writes:
[[I see that BPL has moved from Time Magazine’s- Eye on Science blog to spread his arrogant certitude elsewhere on the blog-a-sphere.]]
Wow, I’ve got a stalker! This is way cool! You know you’ve made it when someone comes in from a different blog to talk about how evil you are. I’m in the money…
February 8th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Shane writes:
[[Barton said:
You need faith that empirical evidence is valid.
That’s funny. And we were only just talking about nonsense.
Thanks.]]
Shane, if you didn’t have faith that empirical evidence was valid, why would you trust it? If you take empirical evidence as something useful, you must believe that empiricism is a valid way to gather evidence, and that evidence itself is to be believed. A belief is a belief is a belief, as Gertrude Stein said. You can’t get away with pretending “belief” is confined to religious believers.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Gee Celtic, Peter now admits that his answers to questions 1 and 2 were contradictory. I guess you two can argue about that one.
Of course, it’s not my main interest to catch anyone in a contradiction although that may happen from time to time. I guess the broader issue I would bring up is that the term Skepticism already has a long philosophical background beginning with certain Greek philosophers in the 4th century B.C. One of the most famous was Pyrrho of Elis (360 – 270 B.C.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrho
“The main principle of Pyrrho’s thought is expressed by the word acatalepsia, which connotes the impossibility of knowing things in their own nature; against every statement its contradiction may be advanced with equal justification. Secondly, it is necessary in view of this fact to preserve an attitude of intellectual suspense, or, as Timon expressed it, no assertion can be known to be better than another. Thirdly, Pyrrho applied these results to life in general, concluding that, since nothing can be known, the only proper attitude is ataraxia, “freedom from worry”.”
So Pyrrho is essentially saying that we can’t know anything, at least not finally. This seems to be most similar to dictionary definition 1a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain.
Now the big question is this. Is this the same philosophy that BA and Karen Stollznow are using with regards to science or is it different? If it is the same then what basis does BA (or anyone else for that matter) have in claiming that evolution is “better” than ID? Ultimately you can never know since knowledge is always provisional. Theory A may seem better than theory B today, but new evidence may be found at any time to reverse that judgment.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“Right. Like the belief that empiricism is valid, which can’t be proved empirically.”
I agree with Barton on this one. Any system of human thought whether it be science, religion, mathematics, etc., etc. must rely on principles that are assumed to be true and cannot be proved within the system itself. If that were not the case then all arguments within the system would be circular since even the axioms/postulates of the system would be provable from within the system and they in turn would be used to prove other statements/theorems.
I believe Kurt Godel had something to say about the subject as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_completeness_theorem
February 8th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
BPL,
Stalker? Don’t flatter yourself. It’s so un-Christian, remember?
All beliefs are not equal. Subjective and unsubstantiated religious belief does not have the equal weight of belief in objective physical evidence.
The former only trusts and relies on the unverifiable testimonies of writers of questionable authenticity and about superantural events that have no tangible evidence. Nothing in the Bible or Koran etc can be set up as an experiment today and repeated by others now to confirm what is put forth as so called universal truths.
Just because someone has a “spirtual transformation” in their life is not proof to all that the experience is real and universal.
Even if empiricism cannot be absolutely proven except some unknown way outside of the system we live in, we have to have something consensual to agree on as real and trustworthy as evidence. I will place my provisional trust in what rationality and science can deliver over the subjective, non-duplicatible beliefs of religious faith.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
My belief that the plane you’re on will get off the ground is not the same as the belief that you’re off to the after life if the plane catastrophically fails to get into the air.
I agree with panicum, truth, evidence and reality will always trump untestable assertions.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
G’day Tom
You asked: “Is [Pyrrho’s] the same philosophy that BA and Karen Stollznow are using with regards to science or is it different?”
It’s different.
The main difference I see between Pyrrho’s skepticism and modern skepticism is the acceptance by modern skeptics that provisional acceptance can and should be given to a claim supported by a preponderance of evidence. Pyrrho’s skepticism seems to me to be a lot closer to what underlies post-modernism and relativism.
I accept that, for the sake of argument, the contradiction to any idea may be advanced. But I don’t think that every contradiction can be advanced “…with equal justification…”
For example, take this idea: “Jumping out a tenth storey window onto concrete 30 metres below is dangerous.” Its contradiction is, “jumping out a tenth storey window onto concrete 30 metres below is not dangerous.” The two statements can be made, but I think the preponderance of evidence would suggest the first may be advanced with more justification than the second.
In other words, as I said in my previous post, suspend judgement; but not permanently, only until there’s some evidence. Then make a judgement.
The point I’m trying to make is that a skeptical attitude isn’t just some philosophy with little practical use in everyday life. It underlies good science, and it’s also a useful tool for helping us avoid being taken advantage of in everyday life. Am I making this point well enough, or does it not follow for you?
February 8th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Barton said: “Right. Like the belief that empiricism is valid, which can’t be proved empirically.”
Tom Marking said: “I agree with Barton on this one.”
I suppose I do too. But that doesn’t mean that empiricism is just like any other belief system, or no better than any other belief system.
Empiricism has shown itself to be much better than other belief systems at consistently explaining the world and the universe, and has generated a lot more knowledge than other belief systems. On top of that, it’s simple and low maintenance, where one theory can explain a range of phenomena. For example, gravity explains why the planets orbit the Sun, and also explains why a stone falls from your hand to the ground.
Now it’s possible that God might be twiddling a series of levers and knobs, making the planets constantly move in a manner which makes it look as though they’re moving in accordance with gravity, and making that stone accelerate out of your hand towards the ground at 9.8 metres per second squared. And it might be that at some point in the future, God might decide to change a few parameters, and make the planets move in a way contrary to what gravity would suggest. But in the absence of any such evidence, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the universe behaves in predictable ways because of physical laws we’ve been able to discover thanks to our acceptance of empiricism.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:58 am
“Am I making this point well enough, or does it not follow for you?”
Yes, it’s a good explanation, Peter, as far as it goes. I think there’s a lot more to science than skepticism however. And the way science is really practiced and really taught in schools is a good deal different from this ideal. I suppose that’s a different topic however.