From: fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:16:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.011823.11874@draco.macsch.com>, jfb@draco.macsch.com (John Baskette) writes:
|> 
|> 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? 

No.
 
|> 
|> >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? 

Do you know any skeptics? I have no problems with skeptical thought, but my
point was merely made to illustrate the problems that can arise from an
extreme viewpoint with reguard to skepticism. What makes skepticism
supposedly immune from falling prey to prejudice?

|> 
|> >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!  

An extreme example used simply to illustrate a point.

|> 
|> >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".

Oh my god! Thank you. You have just found an example where my skepticism is
based on my personal prejudice. I believe that there is an overwhelming
body of knowledge and evidence which is sufficient to categorically refute
any claims as to a flat Earth. So I subsequently feel that my prejudice in this 
matter is reasonably well founded although I have no direct experience to
the contrary. Is that too much to ask. If I were to step a little further
out and suggest Newtons law of Gravitation precludes any phenomena such as
levitation (nonelectromagnetic variety). This would form a prejudice based
on an incomplete theory and its application to an as yet unexplained phenomena.
If I were to observe such a phenomena, where would I go then? To Einsteins 
theory of General Relativity perhaps? But that also may not necessarily hold
an answer. So I may postulate that I will never whitness or experience 
levitation without the aid of our friend, electromagnetic repulsion. Ah, 
but there are a million and one explanations within science. What if
the answer lies without the boundary of current scientific knowledge?
How can I think of an explanation then, if the solution exists outside of
the current scientific knowledge base? Bah, humbug! There can be no such thing.
It must not exist and any claims to the contrary must either be attributed
to fraud or hallucination.

|> 
|> >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?

I believe there is a simple logic arguement reguarding subjective
perceptions that will give you this. A subjective reality is necessarily
a postulate, and not needed within science. However most people feel
comfortable with it.

|> 
|> 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.

This is fine as long as the explanation is indeed simple. However, if the
explanation doesn't exist within science yet, what then does a skeptic
believe?  

|> 
|> 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? 

What if they don't feel the need to prove anything? Just because they
will not subject themselves to your terms, does not necessarily condem
them to be frauds. If you don't believe them, then you find some 
incontravertible proof which can be used to refute ALL future claims.
Otherwise your belief is based on faith and prejudice.
  
|> 
|> 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!

Courage of their convictions --> faith? I believe that there are many frauds
about. But when Peter really cries "Wolf!". Who will be around to hear him?

As I have said before; I think skeptical thought is necessary. But I object
to the overzealous skeptic who bases their thought on a prejudiced world
view.

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

I'm sorry. Would you like to buy a crystal?

Do you find it hard to accept faith on one hand and keep all other faith
and prejudice out of the rest of your beliefs? I know I would.

Anyway, you must believe in a spooky force. If God can't at least bend spoons,
why worship him?

|> John.


Mark.
(Hurry Hurry, Only while stocks last. Healing crystals drastically reduced)

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic