From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Faith and Skeptics, Part 1 (was: Re: Re: Faith and skeptics.)
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:51:58 GMT

	Multiple "Re"s are not common, for obvious reasons.
	Please use only one Re.
This got rather long, so I broke it up.

In article <BvpEsG.8CI@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
>My approach is to then address what I believe is the biased reasoning of an
>extreme skeptic.

What I am missing in this discussion is a point of reference.  What do
you view as "extreme"?  Dave Casper, whose skeptical postings in
alt.astrology are - from my point of view - calm, sensible, and open-
minded, is regarded by some of the regulars there as a sort of hyper-
skeptical monster.  From my experience in the net I suspect that the
average skeptic is already extreme to you.

>Is any skeptic *totally* fimiliar with the current scientific world view?
>Furthermore, is anybody *totally* familiar with the current scientific
>world view. Surely the current body of scientific output is soo large,
[..]
That's absolutely not necessary for judging a fringe subject.
E.g. for judging astrology, you only need to know a little real
understanding of statistics, and a little common-sense psychology.
Then you see that everything can be explained without astrology, so
it's an unnecessary hypothesis.  Occam-Razor-Food.

>What if the supposedly incomplete world view leads the skeptic to
>punch holes in an otherwise watertight case? Now this may not happen
>in the majority of cases, but such prejudiced acceptance of an incomplete
>world view, could lead to such an instance. Accepting the validity of my
>previous statements, can anybody give me a reason why this could never
>happen?

Of course it can.  But as you said: "this may not happen in the majority
of cases".  There is a small risk to overlook a thing, but the alternative
is opening the door for thousands of fantasies and illusions, blocking
real science.

>[..] kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>|>[..] fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
>|>>Thus for some unexplained phenomena, a sceptic will seek to find
>|>>some *rational* solution. This *rational* solution is obviously made with
>|>>respect to his own infallable judgement.
>|>
>|>Obviously?  Non sequitur.  It may be obvious to you but it is wrong anyway.
>|>[rest of paragraph omitted, since it is based on above falsehood]

To make that remark more clear:  It may be obvious to you that the solution
is made with respect to his *infallible* judgement.  To me it's not
only not obvious that the skeptic regards himself as infallible, but I
think that you are projecting things into him.  You may have the impression
that the skeptic thinks like that, but that doesn't make it so.

To turn the situation around, in *my* opinion *anti-skeptics* think in
this way:

1) I am right.
2) This skeptic says I'm wrong.
3) Then he must be wrong.
4) What could have induced him to say wrong things?
  a) He is closed-minded.
  b) He doesn't know anything about the subject.
  c) He is part of conspiracy to hide the truth.
  d) In reality he shares my opinion, but peer pressure makes him oppose.
  e) Huuii, look at his chart!  (astrologers only)
  f) He only wants to have an argument.
  g) He is caught in reductionist/rationalist/positivist/... thinking.
  h) He thinks science has found everything there is to find.
  etc.  (Who knows more?)
5) So I don't have to listen to him.

>When I typed UFO, it was because I couldn't be bothered writing "Close 
>encounters" and/or "extraterrestrial encounters", but I thought you'd
>understand and not point out the bloody obvious. This was not good
>scientific practice for which I am now sorry!

Thank you for being much more sensible than the average alt.alien.visitors
reader... on second thought, that's not much of a compliment, but
anyway...

>|>Oh!  If it doesn't fit, all you have to do is point to the mistake
>|>the skeptic made.  Do you even have any examples of skeptics constructing
>|>not-fitting explanations?  We'd love to hear them.
>
>Do you now speak for all skeptics? In my time, I have heard some very strained

I guess others, if not all of them, would like to hear them too.
"Show us" is, after all, the skeptic's line.

>explanations for all of the above phenomena. I have consequently been 
>skeptical of these explanations. If you believe this cannot happen, then

Of course it can.  Skeptics are humans.  I only wanted to know what you
regard as "even if it doesn't [fit]".  It's the missing reference point
again.  For all I know, you could believe in Santa Claus and complain
about the absurd "they are in reality masked students earning a bit of
money during Christmas" theory.

>|>>I feel that such self deception is inevitably bad. A highly sceptical
>|>>attidude can only be bad. If there exists an alternative cure for
>|>>cancer, then the sceptic will surely die.
>|>
>|>You surely wanted to say, [..]
>Thank you. :^) That's exactly what I meant. You have indicated that my 
>summary sufficiently conveyed the message.
[..]
>See statement above Re UFO.

Sorry, I must have been in a picky mood...

[I had shredded the following paragraph to insert comments, here is it,
regenerated to get the context back]
>|>>I find it is much more useful to have an open mind on things which
>|>>you really know nothing about. Why should I call every body who has
>|>>sighted an UFO, an idiot. I don't KNOW that UFOs don't exist. I 
>|>>agree with scientific rigor, however, sceptics have a pre-existing
>|>>prejudice.
>|>
>|>This seems to be a very strong prejudice of yours.
>
>I don't think that this is one of my prejudices. My view is established
>using observational data and logical interpretation and extrapolation.
>If I am in error, then feel free to provide such incontravertible evidence
>such that I may change my mind.

I'll try to analyze that.
When you say you have "observational data" to show skeptics "have a
pre-existing prejudice", you certainly mean you have observed skeptics
in the process of misjudging (in your opinion) a phenomenon.
"Logical interpretation" makes you think it's because of prejudice and
"extrapolation" leads you to the hypothesis that skeptics in general are
prejudiced.
I don't know, but that sounds like a prejudice to me, and it is
remarkably close to the anti-skeptics model (or prejudice) I described
above.  Perhaps "prejudice" is too sloppy a word...

>|>>[..] Throughout the history of
>|>>science, old prejudiced beliefs have been shattered under the weight
>|>>of strong new theories.
[..]
>|>Do you know how often we hear this on s.s?
>No.
Every week or so?  Anyway, it's in the FAQ.

>|>>I believe that there is no accessible objective truth. Thus, there can
>|>>be no absolute certainty as to how things behave. Physics works, but it
>|>>isn't all there is.
>|>
>|>This can be interpreted in two ways, either as a truism ("you can't explain
>|>love using physics") or as a bold assertion ("There are things that defy
>|>physics").  Which do you mean?
>
>Sorry. What I was trying to convey is that it would be extremely presumptious
>to assume that physics is complete. That we have a TOE (Theory Of Everything).
>Physics *only* provides us with models of what we observe. It is completely
>erroneous to ascribe any fundamental truth to the laws of physics. Thus we
>are lead to the statement: "While physics seems to work, we will continue
>to use it".
>
>So, how about: "There are may be things which physics cannot yet explain".

That new proposition doesn't help, but the paragraph above does.
It's the "history of science" pseudo-argument again, and here is why it's a
pseudo-argument:

You are starting from hypothesis 4h) in my anti-skeptics model above
  h) He thinks science has found everything there is to find.
but this hypothesis is wrong.
Skeptics know very well that science changes, thank you.  And it's not only
because we are told it every week.

New theories get accepted because of evidence.  That's how science works, and
that's what's made science change over the years.  Galileo's theories were
accepted in the end, but not because he said "Science changes, and we should
have a change now" but because he had found evidence.

>|>>[..] While sceptics retard the advancement of knowledge, let's try not be too 
>|>>gullible either.
>|>
>|>What?  In the very moment you are "not too gullible", the gullible ones will
>|>call you exactly the things you just called us!
>|>How do you tell the difference between those two situations?  What do you
>|>answer them?
>
>Gullible people seem to suffer from either a lack of knowledge to the 
>contrary, or a lack of self-confidence or both. They will swallow what is
>fed them. Where as, on the other hand extreme skeptics will spit it back
>in your face.
>
>Which is the more mature action?

The defiant phase comes after the "Mom-and-Pop-know-everything" phase,
so I guess it's the second :-)

Anyway, I think you misunderstood me.  What I meant is this:
The constellation "Gullible One vs. You" is in principle the same one as
"You vs. Skeptic One", only shifted in the not-so-skeptic direction
of the scale.
You take the part of the skeptic, the Gullible One (GO) takes your part.
The GO can use *exactly* the same arguments against you that you use
against the skeptic.  He can say  "You are prejudiced!  You operate on
faith!  Who are you that you know everything?  You are closed to further
input!  You should know that science changes." etc.  That shows that
your arguments are pointless.  They are independent of the person who
utters them.  I could use them against someone who doesn't believe in
the theory of relativity, you can use them against me, the GO can use
them against you.  It's the missing point of reference again:  From your
arguments, I have not the slightest idea where you are on the scale
of skepticism.

>I think skepticism is a necessary part of critical thought. However, if taken
>to extremes, skepticism leads to a prejudiced way of thinking. [..]

All I know now is that there are people more gullible than you and
there are people more skeptical than you.  But I can of course guess
that you are more on the gullible side, as it wouldn't be worth while
to post lengthy articles about a small minority group (those more
skeptical than you).

(Part 2 follows soon)

--
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
...and then the dragon ate the princess and the knight, and he lived happily
ever after.   -- Grandma Addams telling Wednesday a story (paraphrased)