From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The "Extreme" skeptic  (Was Re: Faith and sceptics.)
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:59:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.040731.20207@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> 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.
Let me attempt to rephrase that.  Based on the sketpics knowledge of the
wildness of the claim, the skeptic offers suggestions that make the claim
testable.  The suggestions are tests for the claim.  The suggestions are based
on current knowledge of the world and are supported by current claims in the
same area that have not been falsified.  Does that help?  Probably not.

> 
> [BTW, what is a simple explanation? "God created everything" is much simpler
> than any other abiogenetic theories, for that matter.]
Nonsense.  Untestable claim,
> 
> 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).
The claimant must demonstrate that the claim is falsifiable, hence testable,
and (thoughtfully) should have demonstrated that the claim is supported by
evidenciary results from the tests.  Does _that_ help?
> 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.
Strawman again.  The intuition you mention is based on the earlier statement 
of understanding the rules of evidence, and the evidence in hand about the 
claim, and that there is no reason in the world that a skeptic has to run 
around responding to the same claims over and over since the preponderance of 
evidence has not changed by the claim. That is most definitely not "closure."
> 
> 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.
Since you are putting it into an ad hominem argument, is not the claimant
lacking in self-esteem also, and "closing" their minds to alternate
explanations.  Your argument can cut both ways, but you are still not
understanding skepticism.
[...]
> 
> Correct. I was saying that skepticism is often used as a philosophy by those
> who retard progress.

Still would like to see some proof.
> 
>>
>>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.
Nonsense.  Skepticism asks for _evidence_.  The so-called status quo is called
on to defend itself as much as any new claim.  Remember, it's what stands up to
the evidence.  As far as your statement about "not generating anything new", I
am totally unsure where that fits it.  Skepticism asks about old and new
claims.  

> 
>>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.

Why?  Brainstorming is a common scientific technique for developing new ideas. 
Is this supposed to be news?  However brainstorming without development of
testable claims is mental masturbation.
> 
>>SKEPTICISM ==> CONFIDENCE IN KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE SO FAR ==> HIGH SELF ESTEEM
>>           ==> MONEY, SUCCESS, POWER, THE WORLD hahaheeheehohoHARghah
> 
Migawd. You let the secret out.  Now the TriLateral Commission get you.

> 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.
> 
I have tremendous confidence and  belief in myself.  Am I still allowed to be a
skeptic? :-)

> 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)
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wrong!

> 
> 
> 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.
> 
But there have been absolutely no examples of  such a skeptic.  Please provide
one.

> 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.

What things are these?
> 
> 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.
Proof please?

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

Please post your experiences where this is the case.  I am skeptical
about your claim.  All of the really creative people that I know or have
watched in operation have a strong skeptical component.  These are scientists
and engineers who have developed new, innovative ideas in medicine, computers,
and other disciplines.  None of these people are afraid to have their ideas 
tested by others.  So please post your tests of the "Extreme Skeptic Principle
(hah! - ESP (totally accidental)) so that we may test it.

GXKambic
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic