From: jfb@draco.macsch.com (John Baskette)
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics
Organization: MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 01:18:13 GMT


In article <Bvqv3A.658@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:

>Do you know any skeptics? I have no problems with skeptical thought, but my

Yes.

>point was merely made to illustrate the problems that can arise from an
>extreme viewpoint with reguard to skepticism. What makes skepticism
>supposedly immune from falling prey to prejudice?

Individuals can fall prey to prejudice.  That is one reason why science
has strict standards of evidence and peer review designed to reduce
these problems to a minimum.  Skeptics ask that extraordinary claims 
be subject to the same standards.

>|> Show one skeptic anywhere that claims to have all knowledge!  
>
>An extreme example used simply to illustrate a point.

I believe that this extreme example is also known as a straw man.

>Oh my god! Thank you. You have just found an example where my skepticism is
>based on my personal prejudice. I believe that there is an overwhelming
>body of knowledge and evidence which is sufficient to categorically refute
>any claims as to a flat Earth. So I subsequently feel that my prejudice in this 
>matter is reasonably well founded although I have no direct experience to
>the contrary. Is that too much to ask. If I were to step a little further
>out and suggest Newtons law of Gravitation precludes any phenomena such as
>levitation (nonelectromagnetic variety). This would form a prejudice based
>on an incomplete theory and its application to an as yet unexplained phenomena.
>If I were to observe such a phenomena, where would I go then? To Einsteins 
>theory of General Relativity perhaps? But that also may not necessarily hold
>an answer. So I may postulate that I will never whitness or experience 
>levitation without the aid of our friend, electromagnetic repulsion. Ah, 
>but there are a million and one explanations within science. What if
>the answer lies without the boundary of current scientific knowledge?
>How can I think of an explanation then, if the solution exists outside of
>the current scientific knowledge base? Bah, humbug! There can be no such thing.
>It must not exist and any claims to the contrary must either be attributed
>to fraud or hallucination.

The word prejudice can mean preconceived judgment or opinion, but it more
often is used to refer to a hostile or irrational attitude or opinion.  
Your use of the term in your earlier posts seems to mean the latter, but
your prejudice against flat earth and any prejudice of skepticism
is of the former variety.  It is not irrational or inappropriate to have
reasonable judgments that a priori exclude certain ideas from serious 
consideration.

There is a difference between the flat earth idea which is not possible
in the universe as we know it and levitation which is not so excluded but 
could in theory be possible. 

>What if they don't feel the need to prove anything? Just because they
>will not subject themselves to your terms, does not necessarily condem
>them to be frauds. If you don't believe them, then you find some 

Skeptics do not condemn all those who advocate pseudo-science as 
frauds.  Read Randi's Flim-Flam.  He has no patience with those like
Uri Geller that he has shown is a fraud, but he treats true believers
gently.

>incontravertible proof which can be used to refute ALL future claims.
>Otherwise your belief is based on faith and prejudice.

This is the crux of the issue.  The skeptical "paradigm" is that 
extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.  There is a 
plethora of philosophical issues involved in deciding what claims
are extraordinary, but common sense is usually a good rule.  If 
someone said, "I went out to dinner last night", I would believe 
without further proof.  The claim is not extraordinary.  If someone
where to say, "I can levitate", most people would say something 
like, "Is that so?  Well then please prove it, levitate for me."
Even if someone where to levitate, most people would suspect some 
trick and justifiably so.  Most would not believe that someone 
actually levitates until all ordinary explanations are ruled out.

This principle is common sense, not faith and prejudice.  Any 
extraordinary claim for which there is no good evidence ought not 
to be believed until those who make the claims offer good evidence.

>|> BTW, I am a "born-again" Christian.
>
>I'm sorry. Would you like to buy a crystal?

How much?

>Do you find it hard to accept faith on one hand and keep all other faith
>and prejudice out of the rest of your beliefs? I know I would.

My answer to that gets into issues that are more appropriate to other
newsgroups.  I have posted a couple times to soc.religion.christian on
these kinds of issues.

John
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa