From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Re: Faith and skeptics.
Date: 8 Oct 1992 19:18:33 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <BvpEsG.8CI@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
=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.

Fine.  Please give us at least one *REAL* example of your hypothetical
"extreme skeptic."  If you can't, then this is just a straw man.

=|> >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!

As well you should be.  Now, perhaps you can provide some evidence (sorry, but
there's that pesky word again) that there are or recently have been
extraterrestrial spacecraft in the vicinity of Earth?

=|> >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)

How about some specific examples?

=|> >This is not good science. Throughout the history of
=|> >science, old prejudiced beliefs have been shattered under the weight
=|> >of strong new theories.
=|> 
=|> And silly new theories have been shattered too.  So what?
=|> Do you know how often we hear this on s.s?
=
=No.

I think it's on the FAQ.  That should give you a hint.  The fact that you don't
know makes it appear that you decided to post your ill-founded flame against
skeptics without even reading this group for any length of time.  Sounds like
pure prejudice on your part to me.

=For all of those examples I listed earlier, there exists a large body of
=circumstatnial evidence and hearsay.

Yup.  There exists a substantial body of evidence and hearsay that Zeus et. al.
exist, too.  For that matter, there's a large body of hearsay that strange
things have happened over the last few decades in a town called Castle Rock,
Maine (would Stephen King lie to us?).  So what?

=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.

That's true.  That's why skeptics don't say "this doesn't exist," they say
"I've got no reason to believe it exists until you provide some evidence."

=For each
=such case which is proved fraudulent, there exist hundreds, thousands
=of accounts which have not been so proved.

And none that have provided hard evidence that they are valid.  Can you get
that through your skull?  No hard evidence of extraterrestrial spacecraft; no
hard evidence of someone having Uri Geller-like powers (well, not moreso than
any competent stage magician can manage); no hard evidence that "alternative
medicine" works better than placebos.  And lots of instances of each of these
where it's been shown that what we were dealing with was out-and-out fraud.
So when you hear yet another totally unsubstantiated claim, what's the best way
to bet?

=There are those of you who cry: "Give us EVIDENCE so that we may believe".
=
=I would prefer to say: "Give me the scientific EVIDENCE so that I may believe,
=otherwise give me scientific EVIDENCE so that I may disbelieve".

We work with what evidence we have.  It's impossible to prove a negative the
way you're asking us to.  I guess you believe that reindeer can fly, eh? 
After all, we hear reports of this phenomenon every winter.  Of course,
nobody's ever given any hard evidence that *NO* reindeer can *EVER* fly. 
That'd be impossible to do.  So you then, if you're to be consistent, would
have us believe that there's a non-negligible chance that *SOME* reindeer *CAN*
fly.

=A large mass of circumstantial evidence or hearsay should count for more
=than ones prejudiced belief in the contrary.

I guess it must be possible for some reindeer to fly, then.  Lots of
circumstantial evidence (all those gifts under trees every December 25) and
hearsay (we hear stories about it every winter), so by your criteria, we should
believe that at least nine reindeer are capable of flight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.