From: jfb@draco.macsch.com (John Baskette)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:18:23 GMT
Organization: MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.


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.
>Thus for some unexplained phenomena, a sceptic will seek to find
>some *rational* solution. This *rational* solution is obviously made with

What is the point of this?  Do you believe what you reason can't be true?
Do you seek *irrational* solutions to unexplained phenomena?  It seems to 
me that skeptics do not march in lock-step to any ideology, but they share
in common a belief that all "explanations" of unexplained phenomena must
meet the same demands of evidence that is required of any scientific theory.
Do you think that this is an unfair or inappropriate demand?  

>respect to his own infallable judgement. Thus a sceptic has ultimate FAITH
>in his knowledge of how things are. So there must be a point in life, when

This is flat wrong.  I know of no skeptic that holds his own judgment to
be infallable.  I know of no skeptic that has a fixed view of "how things are"
that is not subject to change in light of new knowledge and evidence.  I know
of no skeptic that exercises any kind of blind faith in any system of 
knowledge.  There is a reliance on the methods and results of modern science
and even those are are subject to critical and rational analysis.
Do you believe that the methods and results of modern science should not be
trusted? 

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

Show one skeptic anywhere that claims to have all knowledge!  

>I find no answer for this.  Once the trainee sceptic has completed this
>world model, they are subsequently closed to any further input. This would

If skeptics are so closed to further input then how do you explain all the 
skeptics who keep reading all the "CRAP" and refuting it?  You make this
error that says that to be open minded means that you must not disagree
with anything that is proposed.  If you take issue with some psuedo-science
then you are automatically close minded.  This is not so!  An open-minded 
person is one who is willing to listen and consider what any viewpoint has
to say, not one that says that the viewpoint is true or that the viewpoint
has any kind of reasonable probability of being true.  Are you open
minded with respect to the claims of the Flat Earth Society?  There are 
skeptics who have read Flat Earth Society literature in order to open 
mindedly understand their claims.  The open minded analysis and logical
conclusion is: "more CRAP".

>UFO's, Alternative medicine, The power of the mind, the supernatural and
>paranormal, ouija boards etc, Internal martial arts, and more.

>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

How did you access this wonderful objective truth that there is no
accessible objective truth?

You whole analysis rests on a massive misunderstanding of how skeptics
operate.  Skeptics do not deny that unexplained phenomena exist.  Skeptics
believe that there are UFOs.  There are many flying objects that are
unidentified.  It is the flying saucer people who insist that they know
what the UFOs really are! (i.e. ETs)  Skeptics do not have any similar
preconceived idea as to what a particular phenomena must be.

Skeptics rely on the principle that it is far more probable that
unexplained phenomena are the results of known causes than that such
phenomena are the result of some extraordinary cause.  

Can Uri Geller bend spoons using some unexplained method that Geller says 
is psychic power?  The skeptic thinks a priori that such an unexplained 
method is more likely to be caused by known causes (trickery using slight 
of hand) than that the unexplained method is some extraordinary cause 
like psychic power.  The skeptic, however, is open to any kind of 
reasonable objective test that will demonstrate extraordinary causes 
of such phenomena.  The burden of proof for extraordinary claims lies 
with those who make the claims.

Do you think that this principle unreasonable?   

You seem to think that skeptics will go to any length to refute
extraordinary claims to "make things fit their model".  This is simply
not true.  Skeptics regularly set challenges to test for extraordinary
claims using rigorous controls.  These challenges are regularly accepted
with conditions to which all parties agree.  In no case has any 
extraordinary claim been demonstrated, but in *every case* the 
possibility existed that some extraordinary claim could be verified.
How many advocates for some of the views that you mention have a similar
courage of thier convictions?  If they are there, let them come forth!

BTW, I am a "born-again" Christian.

John.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic