From: fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Subject: Faith and sceptics.
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 11:49:05 GMT

Uh, I could be in for more than I am prepared to take on, but here goes:

One can't argue with christians, because they have that intangible thing
called faith. Logic fails under the wicked assault from faith. Why is it
that "born again christians" will not argue about the anthropomorphic
characteristics of the bible? They will not enter into discussions about
the historical parallels with other civilizations. They refuse to consider
the psychology of religions, because they have found THE ANSWER and they
have FAITH in that answer.

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
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
a sceptic has acquired such knowledge, as to enable such infallable 
judgements. This raises the question: What is a sceptic, before they have
acquired the requisite knowledge to make such valuable judgements? An 
answer suggests itself: This trainee sceptic often made incorrect
judgements which were subsequently used to build this knowledge base.
Once this knowledge base is complete, the sceptic can then happily
go about the business of *rationally* explaining the unexplained.

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

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
seem to prevent any further enlightenment as to how things are. The sceptic,
now appropriately blinkered now takes on the task of explaining everything.

While the preceeding arguement is somewhat extreme, I feel that it does
illustrate the problem with extreme scepticism. Apart from faith that their
idea of how the universe works is very nearly correct, sceptics have no other
basis for making the judgements that they so often do.

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
paranormal, ouija boards etc, Internal martial arts, and more.

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. 

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.

I find it is much more useful to have an open mind on things which
you really know nothing about. Why should I call every body who has
sighted an UFO, an idiot. I don't KNOW that UFOs don't exist. I 
agree with scientific rigor, however, sceptics have a pre-existing
prejudice. This is not good science. Throughout the history of
science, old prejudiced beliefs have been shattered under the weight
of strong new theories.

Science has never claimed to have all the answers. It merely models
what we observe. It holds no proof of some objective truth. Science
is simply a useful tool for making certain predictions. There is
not one part of physics that explains what anything *is*. There
is no accessible fundamental(any physical fundamental can inturn 
describled in terms of some other fundamental, it doesn't end, 
except in certain axioms. Nowhere is there to be found, *truth*.)

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
isn't all there is.

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.
Scientists should endevour to know. Any pre-existing prejudice can hinder
the scientists search for knowledge.

While sceptics retard the advancement of knowledge, let's try not be too 
gullible either.


Mark.