From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Skepticism (Was Re: Faith and sceptics.)
Keywords: Popper, pessimism, progress
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:07:31 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide


In article <Bw5n2p.Fzo@comp.vuw.ac.nz> matthew@rima.isor.vuw.ac.nz (Matthew Hobbs) writes:
>
>Derek Abbott wrote:
>
>> [Karl Popper] .. that science CANNOT prove anything true, but it
>> can prove things false.
>> Notice, that this clashes with skepticism which out of economy likes
>> to prove that one thing is `true' rather than having to debunk 100 other
>> false things to get the same result.
>
>Skeptics try to suggest simpler explanations AND try and debunk.
>
But when these suggestions are offered with no proof (other than faith in
simplicity being magical) and all the debunking consists of is a few
`armchair catch phrases' it really offers no progress.

[BTW, what is a simple explanation? "God created everything" is much simpler
than any other abiogenetic theories, for that matter.]

Also when a new claim is somewhat offbeat, the skeptic's tactic of saying
"the onus is on you to prove it's true," is not Popperian.
Because Popper only proves things false. The claimant obviously can't
prove his claim is false, as he's the one who is claiming it to be true.
So the philosphical onus is on the Skeptic to prove it false. (I'm
assuming that scientific skeptics subscribe to Popperian objectivity).

However, out of economy, it is impossible for skeptics to bear this onus
in every case. The skeptic is forced to `close his mind' and ignore
claims that he intuitively feels are wacky. There is nothing wrong with
having a partially closed mind, out of economy.  We are only human.
We are forced to be selective, by our finiteness and limited resources.

Where it goes wrong, is when some skeptics do not have the self-esteem
to simply admit that they are closing their minds out of economy and putting
faith in their intuition.  Instead they engage in a battle of words, that is
destined for deadlock. Deadlock = no progress. Out of frustration, on both
sides, it sometimes degenerates into verbal abuse.

This is the psychology of what tends to happen.

>> [`skeptical extremism' can retard knowledge]
>
>In your point about historical advancers of society usually being
>optimistic people. This is undoubtedly true, however you seem to
>equate skepticism with pessimism. This is false, I could equally
>say that an extreme skeptic is being optimistic that someone
>elses theory is wrong (or they are right).

True. But I was not making such a simple link.

>
>You provide a rationale for saying that:
>
>PESSIMISM ==> (usually low esteem) ==> SKEPTICISM AS A PROP  ===>
>              (protects himself)   ==> RETARDS PROGRESS.

OK correct enough, for argument's sake.

>
>But it would be a simple logical fallacy to deduce from that:
>
>   a) skeptics have low self esteem
>   b) skeptics are pessimists
>   c) skeptics retard progress
>
>so I'll assume you are not deducing any of that.

Correct. I was saying that skepticism is often used as a philosophy by those
who retard progress.

>
>A better set of rationales is:
>

>SKEPTICISM ==> VASTLY MORE EFFICIENT WAYS OF GETTING THEORIES ==> PROGRESS

Disagree. Skepticism by it's nature is defensive. Is defends the status quo.
On it's own, it does not generate anything new.

>NON-SKEPTICISM ==> RANDOM THEORY GENERATION ==> TINY PROGRESS ==> CAVE TIME

Disagree. There's a lot to be said for `brainstorming.' Read books on
lateral thinking by Edward de Bono (eg. "Serious Creativity"). You'll
be impressed.

>SKEPTICISM ==> CONFIDENCE IN KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE SO FAR ==> HIGH SELF ESTEEM
>           ==> MONEY, SUCCESS, POWER, THE WORLD hahaheeheehohoHARghah

Disagree. Self-esteem is nothing to do with knowledge. It's to do with being
bought up in a loving, encouraging environment that transfers confidence and
belief in yourself.

Here is how I would redraw your diagram:

                                             iterative process
                                              (feedback loop)
                                  -----------------<-----------------
                                  |                                 |
progress=   action + resources + lateral thought  -->  linear thought
                                      ^                      ^
                                      |                      |
                                      |                      |
                               Brainstorm Toolbox      Skeptic Toolbox
                                (creative)               (conservative)


In summary, I think what Mark Fernee was trying to say, was that
"extreme skeptics" have a distorted world veiw in that they think
they are the only part of the RHS of the above equation.
And because they are a conservative force, on their own they make
zilch progress.

Progress is made when it is recognised that skepticism is just
a filtration process tagged on the end of other things that
do the real shaking & moving.

It should not become a "philosophy of life" otherwise it retards the
creative processes. It should be regarded only as a toolbox, used
for economy.

>
>It is my experience that skeptics are mentally stronger.
>

It is my experience that too many people use it as a psychological
prop and become mentally lazy and uncreative.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic