From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics
Reply-To: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:56:39 GMT


}(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.

Carl Lydick: 
}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.

Ideally this would be nice, but in reality skeptics are human and they have
prejudices just like anybody else.

}Mark:
}}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.

Carl:
}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 idea that skeptics are somehow different then everyone else, that they
follow evidence while others, namely those who have belief in things like
God and psi go around blindly accepting anything thrown at them is an elitist 
concept. There are many ways to interpret evidence. Judgement of the laws of
nature isn't a simple objective black and white exercise. Subjectivity is
everywhere, and that includes the skeptics.

}Mark:
}}The nagging question still remains: How does the trainee sceptic know when
}}the threshold of all knowledge has been reached?

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

It's nice to hear a skeptic say this. Both sides of any argument are often
riddled by subjectivity. I believe Mark while complaining about skepticism is
actually complaining about misapplied skepticism. 

}Mark:
}} (paraphrased) mentions many topics that skeptics have claimed are CRAP.

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

Presenting evidence, and having it accepted are two different things. Yes there
are some guidelines of acceptance, but these guidelines are often misapplied
in a subjective matter. There are many psi studies in scientific journals.
Skeptics would have us believe that they are all crap.

}Mark:
}}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.

Carl:
}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.

Mark goes a little far here. I think that anyone presented with a life/death
issue might be inclined to experiment in order to save their own life.
The question is, how much evidence is needed to
convince the skeptic that trying an "alternative" approach is worthwhile. Also,
one need not quit conventional approaches when trying an alternative.

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

Carl:
}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?

Again, this is ideally what you'd want, but in reality skeptics are like
everyone else. They have prejudices. They often see the evidence the way they
want to. I agree that Uri Geller may be a fake, but he doesn't represent all
psi research.

}Mark:
}}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.

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

I guess all of us should demand that evidence be objectively judged.

Its interesting that Mark ends up comparing his belief methods with Carl's at
the end after trashing skeptics. Actually, this says it all. We all do have
our own agendas don't we?! I would hope that we all would accept the
importance of evidence (objectively judged), while accepting that some things
may exists outside the realm of rational thought and study.

 
---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------