From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Re: Faith and skeptics.
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:07:09 GMT

In article <BvpEsG.8CI@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
> O.K. round two starts.
> Now I shall attempt to address some of these critisisms.
> 
> In article <1992Oct5.011421.1055@rhrk.uni-kl.de>, kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
> |> And another one who doesn't know the first thing about skeptics...
> |> 
> |> 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.
> |> Right.  That's something like the definition of "believe".
> My approach is to then address what I believe is the biased reasoning of an
> extreme skeptic.

So waht?  The "extreme" skeptic has been discussed here many times.  Why set up
strawmen to shoot at?
> 
> |> 
> |> >From
> |> >some intangible source, a sceptic draws his knowledge of what is correct.
> |> 
> |> False.  The skeptic guesses, starting from the current scientific world
> |> view, that a certain explanation for a certain phenomenon is not right,
> |> searches for holes, and in most cases, indeed, the explanation doesn't
> |> hold water.
> 
> 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,
> and sometimes even self-contradictory, that not only would it be 
> difficult for anybody to have a *complete* knowledge, the many competing
> interpretations and conflicting ideas would surely preclude constructing
> any such unified world view.
> 

You miss the point.  The current scientific world  view is that the scientific
method works!  Based on that, there is not a whole helluva lot of good
searching credible scientific work for the holes.  It is on the fringes of
reason that skeptics are usually blasted for applying the scientific method,
but that is where it is most needed.  You definitely do not need to know "all 
there is to know" to ask, "Where is your evidence, how did you collect it, and
is it repeatable?"


> 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?

The world view is the scientific method, _not_ all of the evidence that
supports certain theories by not disproving them.  If by "incomplete", you mean
lacking evidence, then you and the skeptics are in the same boat.  Because this
is where the fringed subjects usually breakdown.  My world view asks for
evidence.  IMHO, I presume to make the assumption that you might not need
evidence to believe in something, but my evidence for that is weak.

Being that your other statements have such limited validity, I am not sure that
the rest of the paragraph is worth dealing with.
> 
> |> 
> |> >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]
> 
> Should I have used "currently unexplained" or "mysterious", "mystical" etc,
> phenomena? If not then please explain?
> 
> Is not the *rational* solution, considered rational by theskeptic? 
> Furthermore, is not the skeptic thus using his own judgement, based as it
> may be on his interpretation of the incomplete current scientific world view,
> to so judge the solution; rational?
> 
It is rational because it comes from a rational method.  Whatever the data and
evidence tell you is the answer, not your beliefs.  Oh well, I guess strawmen
are more fun.


> If not, then please provide references to your school of logic.
> 
> |> 
> |> >The nagging question still remains: How does the trainee sceptic know when
> |> >the threshold of all knowledge has been reached?
> |> >I find no answer for this.  Once the trainee sceptic has completed this
> |> >world model, they are subsequently closed to any further input. [..]
> |> 
> |> Wrong.  Please tell me:  How do you tell the difference between someone
> |> who never changes his opinion because he's narrow-minded and someone who
> |> doesn't change his opinion when you are nearby because you do a poor job
> |> in persuading him?
> |> 
> |> BTW, if you don't change your opinion about skeptics after this posting,
> |> I'll regard you as narrow-minded and closed to further input. :-)
> 
> Sorry, I haven't changed my mind, but I feel my case is in need of further
> clarification. Cynacism aside, parts of my previous posting were 
> intentionally extreme and should not be taken too literally, but merely
> an illustration of a point.

Hoo-hah!  Does this mean that you were withholding evidence (not telling the
net what you really think)? 

> 
> |> 
> |> >I feel that I must give some examples of topics which polarise sceptics:
> |> >
> |> >UFO's, Alternative medicine, The power of the mind, the supernatural and
> 
> 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!
> 
> |> >paranormal, ouija boards etc, Internal martial arts, and more.
> |> 
> |> Internal martial arts?  Can you cause internal injuries with that?
> 
> Seriously, the purported answer is: Yes.
> 
> |> 
> |> >To all these topics, sceptics somehow know the answer (CRAP). 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. 
> |> 
> |> 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
> explanations for all of the above phenomena. I have consequently been 
> skeptical of these explanations. If you believe this cannot happen, then
> I can say no more. I do not have any *evidence* currently available.
> I do however, partly draw my conclusion from my observations of human
> psychology. (even though they are a laymans observations)
>  
Why didn't you say that these were religious beliefs?  
[...]
> |> >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.

The evidence is in this posting.  If your own words don't mean what they say,
then please rephrase.  You mention that you have no data then that your view is
established using observational data. Which is it?  We have at least proof by
contradiction  that you are not clear if you have data or do not.
[...]
> 
> 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".

So what else is new?  When did you last study freshman physics?
> 
> 
> |> 
> |> >[..] 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?

This I believe is the second incidence of the word "extreme."  Please eliminate
the strawman.
[...]
> Now a further clarification:
> 
> I think skepticism is a necessary part of critical thought. However, if taken
> to extremes, skepticism leads to a prejudiced way of thinking. Prejudiced by
> the accepting of a necessarily incomplete current scientific world view.
> Any such prejudiced thinking can inturn cause a retardation in the 
> advancement of science. Thus I try to refrain from fostering any such 
> prejudiced thinking. This I believe to be a state of open-mindedness.



> 
> (For those of you who keep your brains in a special sealed jar [just to
> keep it fresh] because of the fear of open-mindedness causing your brains
> to leak out, I have no sympathy.)
> 
> For all of those examples I listed earlier, there exists a large body of
> circumstatnial evidence and hearsay. While this is not good scientific
> data, and scientific evidence supporting such phenomena is at least
> *scarce* (most would say nonexistant and I can work with that), There is
> correspondingly no EVIDENCE that abjectly, totally, absolutely,
> incontravertibly, categorically DISPROVES these phenomena. For each
> such case which is proved fraudulent, there exist hundreds, thousands
> of accounts which have not been so proved. As the conditions of each
> case may vary and are generally not well known, it is not sufficient to
> use the few cases of negative results to scientifically refute all claims.

Wonderful. The scientific method  can only disprove a theory.  Did we know this
already?  Why am I replying to this?  This is a joke?

GXKambic
standard enuff tiem wasted alrady disclaimer