From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Faq List for skeptics
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:53:36 GMT

Ha!  I knew there was something missing in this group.  Regular FAQ
postings.

In article <714740504.0@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG>, Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:
>If you also think the discussion is of interest to this group,
>by all means indulge in a sci.skeptic posting, too.

I believe that the more people take part in the discussion, the more
the answers are enhanced, polished, and purged of errors.  So let's start
discussion...

>1.  What's a skeptic?  What do skeptics believe, anyhow?
There are different brands of skepticism.  A while ago someone posted
an article about political/philosophical/scientific skepticism, which was
quite instructive.  Does anybody know more?

>2.  If it doesn't hurt anyone, why bother?
Beats me at the moment.  That means this FAQ is necessary.

>3.  When did you become a skeptic?
Isn't it a bit difficult to find a general answer on this?
As regards me, I assume it's because my mother believes in everything from
healing crystals to homeopathy to Fliess biorhythms to astrology to Uri
Geller.
For me, that meant reading every book in the respective sections in the
public library and a lot of discussion practice.

>4.  What do skeptics do that's constructive?  Isn't skepticism a
>negative concept?
Throwing off ballast is a negative concept too, but it is constructive.
Finding the truth implies finding falsities.

>5.  You may claim it doesn't work, but how do you explain x anecdote?
(As this is a general question, you probably mean an anecdote that could be
explained as coincidence.)
Anecdotes are selected data, as nobody tells uninteresting anecdotes.
An astrologer's prediction which doesn't come true is uninteresting, so
only those which come true are preserved.  A picture of reality based on
anecdotes is therefore inevitably heavily biased in favor of interesting
hypotheses.

>6.  What do skeptics think about spiritual matters?  Are skeptics
>atheists?
No.  Sometimes Catholic clerics are the ones most skeptical of claims of 
demonic possession, ghosts, miracles, or appearances of saints.
(Sorry, I don't have proof or even names, it's too long ago; some
documentations on TV.  Can anybody help here?)

>7.  Shouldn't people have a right to believe whatever they want?  Who
>elected YOU thought police?
Of course they have a right to believe what they want, and, what's more,
to utter their opinion.  But I have this right too.  "Thought police"
would imply actual persecution.  What skeptics do is just showing the
other side of the argument.

>8.  What do you get out of being a skeptic?
To be honest, I think it's the joy of discussion, satisfaction of knowing
more or being more intelligent than others, and satisfaction in helping
others to understand things (not necessarily in this order).  Opinions?

>9.  Isn't skepticism a closed-minded, dogmatic position?  How can you
>pretend to do impartial inquiry when you are logical positivists /
>fundamentalist materialists / secular humanists / ... ?
Add ... / reductionists.

"Closed-minded" means that one doesn't believe under any circumstances.
Skeptics are willing to believe as soon as real, credible evidence turns up.
Claims that skeptics are closed-minded and dogmatic normally turn up as an
explanation for the fact that they don't believe in a thing that is obviously
(to some people) true.  Other explanations heard in such situations are
that skeptics are part of a conspiracy, that they are enslaved to authority,
or that they are devotees to the religion of Science.

Skeptics do not pretend to do impartial inquiry, as they know that nobody does
impartial inquiry.  But they use the scientific method, which accounts for
a huge part of the bias.
(Though...Roger Nelson gets slightly irritated when you tell him he is not
impartial, and he says he's a skeptic...hmmm...)

>10.  Have you ever had what you consider to be a genuine psychic
>experience?
Another individual question...
To think it's genuine I have to believe in psi.  I don't believe in psi.

>What would convince you that a paranormal claim is
>genuine?
A lot of independently verifyable experiments with consistent results.


Other questions:

11.  Skeptics say, "There isn't sufficient evidence to prove [insert fringe
hypothesis here], therefore it is wrong."  This is bad logic.  Absence of
proof is not proof of absence!

Answer:
But absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Skeptics don't say that.  They say, "There isn't sufficient evidence to
prove [insert fringe hypothesis here], therefore it is probably wrong."

12.  Why should I trust science?  Science brought us the bomb and carcinogenic
substances and pollution, and science is often wrong.

13.  Why do I have to prove my hypothesis?  The skeptics can't disprove it,
I can't prove it, so it's an impasse.

14.  I have no proof for my hypothesis, but ten years in the future, it will
be accepted.  They didn't believe Galileo first, too, but now he is accepted.
Science changes constantly.

That's enough for this time...

-- 
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Definition:  Idiot-proof  -  you are idiot-proof when you NEVER flame anybody.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15590 talk.origins:10495