From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:50:49 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <BvLI5u.Brx@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
>So too, a sceptic refuses to believe what he reasons can't be true. From
>some intangible source, a sceptic draws his knowledge of what is correct.

Take a skeptic.  Show him evidence that he's wrong.  He'll change his mind. 
Make lots of claims without evidence, and you won't convince him.

>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.

Nope.  His judgement's not infallible.  Skeptics are generally too well aware
of past occasions in which conclusions have been erroneous to claim
infallibility.

>Thus a sceptic has ultimate FAITH
>in his knowledge of how things are. So there must be a point in life, when
>a sceptic has acquired such knowledge, as to enable such infallable 
>judgements.

Nope.  Admittedly, as time goes on and the skeptic finds that most of his
"judgements" have been correct, his confidence in his judgement will improve. 
Of course, if most of his "judgements" have been incorrect, his confidence will
decline.  You see, the idea is, you follow the evidence.  I realize that's an
alien concept to you, but think about it for awhile, won't you?

>This raises the question: What is a sceptic, before they have
>acquired the requisite knowledge to make such valuable judgements?

An inexperienced skeptic.

>An answer suggests itself: This trainee sceptic often made incorrect
>judgements which were subsequently used to build this knowledge base.
>Once this knowledge base is complete, the sceptic can then happily
>go about the business of *rationally* explaining the unexplained.
>
>The nagging question still remains: How does the trainee sceptic know when
>the threshold of all knowledge has been reached?

It never is.  If you want to believe in infallibility, I suggest you go back
to your church.

>I find no answer for this.

That's OK, it was a straw man anyway.

>Once the trainee sceptic has completed this
>world model, they are subsequently closed to any further input.

'Fraid not.  Just provide the evidence.  Second-hand anecdotal accounts don't
qualify as very good evidence.

>This would
>seem to prevent any further enlightenment as to how things are. The sceptic,
>now appropriately blinkered now takes on the task of explaining everything.

The skeptic takes on the task of trying to figure out what the evidence means.

>While the preceeding arguement is somewhat extreme, I feel that it does
>illustrate the problem with extreme scepticism.

No, it illustrates the fact that you religious types can't see outside your own
paradigm of revealed truth, written in stone, forever and ever, amen.

>Apart from faith that their
>idea of how the universe works is very nearly correct, sceptics have no other
>basis for making the judgements that they so often do.

That's true.

>I feel that I must give some examples of topics which polarise sceptics:

>UFO's,

UFOs exist.  However, if you want me to believe that they're REALLY IFOs* that 
are extraterrestrial spacecraft, please provide some evidence.

>Alternative medicine,

Show us some double-blind studies that demonstrate that it works, and you'll
convince us.  Otherwise, placebo effects seem the most parsimonious
explanation.

>The power of the mind,

Your post seems a good argument against this.

>the supernatural and paranormal, ouija boards etc, Internal martial arts,

Again, show us some evidence.  Don't ask us to accept your claim that these
things really exist, but when we ask for a demonstration under controlled
conditions, tell us, "I'm having an off day."  EVERY SINGLE TIME.

>To all these topics, sceptics somehow know the answer (CRAP).

We know that people have made claims for these things for a long time, but have
consistently failed to present evidence.

>Some sceptics
>observe the "unexplained" and yet manage to construct a satisfying
>explanation. To clarify, what I mean by "unexplained" is some
>phenomena that does not fit with the sceptics world view. Thus
>the psychology of an extreme sceptic, is that they will make things
>fit their model, even if it doesn't. 

Care to give an example?

>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.

No, if the cure can be show to be efficacious, the skeptic with cancer will
surely take advantage of it.  He will NOT, however, quit conventional therapy
based on the claim of a practitioner of "alternative medicine" that he's found
an alternative cure, unless said practitioner can provide some evidence to back
up his claim.

>I find it is much more useful to have an open mind on things which
>you really know nothing about.

Your's seems open enough that much of the grey matter has leaked out.
Skeptics DO, by and large have open minds.  They are only dogmatic about one
point:  They want to see EVIDENCE.  Do you understand that word?  EVIDENCE.  A
demonstration that your claims are valid.  If, for example, your implication
that psychic powers such as those claimed by Uri Geller exist, why has nobody
collected any of the various prizes offered to anyone who can demonstrate such
powers under controlled conditions?

>Why should I call every body who has
>sighted an UFO, an idiot.

You shouldn't.  You SHOULD, however, consider someone who sees something which,
BY DEFINITION, he can't identify, and jumps to the conclusion that it's a
spacecraft of extraterrestrial origin, somewhat credulous, at best.

>I don't KNOW that UFOs don't exist.

I know that they DO exist.  I also know that I've never seen a single shred of
hard evidence that indicates they're of extraterrestrial origin.

>I agree with scientific rigor, however, sceptics have a pre-existing
>prejudice.

Why don't you read the FAQ?

>This is not good science. Throughout the history of
>science, old prejudiced beliefs have been shattered under the weight
>of strong new theories.

Afraid not.  They've shattered under the weight of EVIDENCE (there's that pesky
byword of the skeptic again).

>Science has never claimed to have all the answers. It merely models
>what we observe. It holds no proof of some objective truth. Science
>is simply a useful tool for making certain predictions. There is
>not one part of physics that explains what anything *is*. There
>is no accessible fundamental(any physical fundamental can inturn 
>describled in terms of some other fundamental, it doesn't end, 
>except in certain axioms. Nowhere is there to be found, *truth*.)

Never claimed there was.  Your religious attitude is showing again.

>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.

Evidence, please?  We're supposed to believe this just because YOU believe it? 
Why shouldn't it work the other way around?  Why shouldn't YOU believe
something because I believe it?

>To sum up. I find the sceptics faith in his view of the way things are, is 
>as alarming as the christians faith in god. This is not the way of science.

Skeptics demand evidence.  That's the way science works, too.

>Scientists should endevour to know. Any pre-existing prejudice can hinder
>the scientists search for knowledge.

So that means that the scientist's "pre-existing prejudice" in favor of
repeatable experiments over anecdotal evidence should be thrown out?  I don't
think so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Identified Flying Objects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc