From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Consensus (was: Re: Matriarchial "tribes")
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:42:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: bronze.1992Apr8.140612.2466
Reply-To: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <1992Apr6.100853.7739@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, 
kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes...

>In article <1992Apr4.035416.18195@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, 
battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN) writes:

>> In article <1992Mar30.124335.7684@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, 
>[...]
>> 
>> First, elucidate what you call "the scientific method".  We may be using
>> somewhat different definitions, and I don't intend to get into a "definition
>> war" to cross-purposes.
>Agreed.  Just trying for some clarity.
>> 
>>>                    I read this comment as saying that skepticism is a subset
>>>of the scientific method.  Correct?  
>> 
>> It is, in my opinion.  So is mathematics.  Useful tools for lots of things.
>OK.
>> 
>>>                                     If so, you can be a skeptic but not a
>>>scientist, but if you are a scientist you are a skeptic (superset).
>> 
>> Is there something wrong with this idea?  I can be skeptical of the claims of
>> a parapsychologist _without_ having to be a parapsychologist, and so can
>> Martin Gardner, for example.  Now, he (and I, humbly) may _act_like_
>> a scientist is supposed to when we apply a skeptical mind-set to parapsychology,
>> and in fact may actually be doing the work that a parapsychologist _ought_
>> to have done, but our lack of degrees and published papers in parapsychology
>> (and BTW, our disagreement with the "consensus of parapsychologists") in no 
>> way a priori invalidate that skepticism.  So, to all practical purposes, yes, 
>> you can be a skeptic without being a scientist.   Skepticism is a tool, useful 
>> in the sciences, but surely useful in other areas as well.  Other areas do not 
>> fall into the mandate of sci.skeptic, however, so I'll not expand this thread 
>> in that direction.
>I guess that acting like a scientist means you are a scientist.  My
>interpretation would be that taking those steps (applying skepticism) are the
>first steps to the method (whatever the rest of it is).

I have no disagreement with this.  However, you may find that if you believe
that "acting like a scientist" _makes_ you a scientist, you may occasionally
find yourself bumping into that breed of _real_ scientist who profess a
true dislike for "mere amateurs".  Some sciences, such as Astronomy, seem
to have a good working relationship with "their" amateurs, others apparently
_don't_ (medicine, for example.)

>> 
>[...]
>> > So, either skepticism _isn't_ science, or else "consensus" comparisons aren't 
>> good (science or skepticism, take you pick.)
>> Frankly, I pick "all of the above."  Neither is skepticism science, nor are
>> "consensus" comparisons skepticism _or_ science.
>However, are "consensus" comparisons an "acceptable" form of Occam's razor
>given the amount of time we have to deal with these problems?

Not by my (probably flawed) idea of what Occam's razor is.  I don't see
the resemblance between, say,

1. "I disagree with X because all the experts says it's malarkey."
 and 
2. "X overly complicates its mechanisms."

Now, you have implied that the prime motivation for a "consensus comparison"
is limitted time/effort.  My reply is basically, "Too bad.  Some ideas just
may actually take a _lot_ of effort to truely do a correct job of skepticism."

For "shortcuts" use propaganda, but don't call it by a mistaken name.
That's just _more_ propaganda.

On the whole, I doubt we'd really disagree in any particular case.  Most really
wacko ideas don't normally seem to require very much work to be "seen through."
Those unorthodox ideas which _might_ require inordinate amounts of time/effort
to investigate will probably occur closer to the "fuzzy edge" of Real Science,
and will almost certainly get looked at sooner or later by scientists,
as they engage in pushing this edge out into new territory.
My ultimate objection to the "consensus comparison" is right here.  It is
a "backward-looking" attitude, when, IMHO, Science is actually a "forward-
facing" endeavor.  People who are trying to move forward with their noses
aimed at their rear often fall flat on them.  Probably from tripping on some
fact or other.

> 
>GXKambic
>standard disclaimer

Gene Battin
battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet.