From: fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Subject: Re: Re: Faith and skeptics.
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:26:38 GMT

O.K. round two starts.

First of all, my thanks to all of you for not mentioning my contemptable 
errors in spelling. 

Now I shall attempt to address some of these critisisms.

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.

|> 
|> >From
|> >some intangible source, a sceptic draws his knowledge of what is correct.
|> 
|> False.  The skeptic guesses, starting from the current scientific world
|> view, that a certain explanation for a certain phenomenon is not right,
|> searches for holes, and in most cases, indeed, the explanation doesn't
|> hold water.

Is any skeptic *totally* fimiliar with the current scientific world view?
Furthermore, is anybody *totally* familiar with the current scientific
world view. Surely the current body of scientific output is soo large,
and sometimes even self-contradictory, that not only would it be 
difficult for anybody to have a *complete* knowledge, the many competing
interpretations and conflicting ideas would surely preclude constructing
any such unified world view.

What if the supposedly incomplete world view leads the skeptic to
punch holes in an otherwise watertight case? Now this may not happen
in the majority of cases, but such prejudiced acceptance of an incomplete
world view, could lead to such an instance. Accepting the validity of my
previous statements, can anybody give me a reason why this could never
happen?

|> 
|> >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.
|> 
|> Obviously?  Non sequitur.  It may be obvious to you but it is wrong anyway.
|> [rest of paragraph omitted, since it is based on above falsehood]

Should I have used "currently unexplained" or "mysterious", "mystical" etc,
phenomena? If not then please explain?

Is not the *rational* solution, considered rational by theskeptic? 
Furthermore, is not the skeptic thus using his own judgement, based as it
may be on his interpretation of the incomplete current scientific world view,
to so judge the solution; rational?

If not, then please provide references to your school of logic.

|> 
|> >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. [..]
|> 
|> Wrong.  Please tell me:  How do you tell the difference between someone
|> who never changes his opinion because he's narrow-minded and someone who
|> doesn't change his opinion when you are nearby because you do a poor job
|> in persuading him?
|> 
|> BTW, if you don't change your opinion about skeptics after this posting,
|> I'll regard you as narrow-minded and closed to further input. :-)

Sorry, I haven't changed my mind, but I feel my case is in need of further
clarification. Cynacism aside, parts of my previous posting were 
intentionally extreme and should not be taken too literally, but merely
an illustration of a point.

|> 
|> >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!

|> >paranormal, ouija boards etc, Internal martial arts, and more.
|> 
|> Internal martial arts?  Can you cause internal injuries with that?

Seriously, the purported answer is: Yes.

|> 
|> >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)
 
|> >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.
|> 
|> You surely wanted to say, "if there exists an alternative cure for
|> cancer that really works, and a skeptic has cancer that can't be cured
|> conventionally, and the skeptic doesn't believe in the alternative cure,
|> and he doesn't want treatment he doesn't believe in, then the sceptic
|> will surely die."

Thank you. :^) That's exactly what I meant. You have indicated that my 
summary sufficiently conveyed the message.

|> 
|> >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.
|> 
|> Right!  Sighting a flying object and not being able to identify it is
|> not a symptom of idiocy.  So what?
|> 
|> >I don't KNOW that UFOs don't exist.
|> 
|> Good for you.  Of course they exist.  The question is - what are they?
|> Or better: What is this one?  And this one?  And that one? ....
|>

See statement above Re UFO.
 
|> >I 
|> >agree with scientific rigor, however, sceptics have a pre-existing
|> >prejudice.
|> 
|> This seems to be a very strong prejudice of yours.

I don't think that this is one of my prejudices. My view is established
using observational data and logical interpretation and extrapolation. 
If I am in error, then feel free to provide such incontravertible evidence
such that I may change my mind.

|> 
|> >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.

|> 
|> >Science has never claimed to have all the answers. [..]
|> >Nowhere is there to be found, *truth*.)
|> 
|> Tell us something new please.  Tell us a reason to believe in your favorite
|> pseudoscience.

Because it comes with a set of steak knives,.. and that's not all......

|> 
|> >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.
|> 
|> This can be interpreted in two ways, either as a truism ("you can't explain
|> love using physics") or as a bold assertion ("There are things that defy
|> physics").  Which do you mean?

Sorry. What I was trying to convey is that it would be extremely presumptious
to assume that physics is complete. That we have a TOE (Theory Of Everything).
Physics *only* provides us with models of what we observe. It is completely
erroneous to ascribe any fundamental truth to the laws of physics. Thus we
are lead to the statement: "While physics seems to work, we will continue
to use it".

So, how about: "There are may be things which physics cannot yet explain".


|> 
|> >[..] While sceptics retard the advancement of knowledge, let's try not be too 
|> >gullible either.
|> 
|> What?  In the very moment you are "not too gullible", the gullible ones will
|> call you exactly the things you just called us!
|> How do you tell the difference between those two situations?  What do you
|> answer them?

Gullible people seem to suffer from either a lack of knowledge to the 
contrary, or a lack of self-confidence or both. They will swallow what is
fed them. Where as, on the other hand extreme skeptics will spit it back
in your face.

Which is the more mature action?


|> 
|> -- 
|> thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
|> Science is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing available.

Now a further clarification:

I think skepticism is a necessary part of critical thought. However, if taken
to extremes, skepticism leads to a prejudiced way of thinking. Prejudiced by
the accepting of a necessarily incomplete current scientific world view.
Any such prejudiced thinking can inturn cause a retardation in the 
advancement of science. Thus I try to refrain from fostering any such 
prejudiced thinking. This I believe to be a state of open-mindedness.

(For those of you who keep your brains in a special sealed jar [just to
keep it fresh] because of the fear of open-mindedness causing your brains
to leak out, I have no sympathy.)

For all of those examples I listed earlier, there exists a large body of
circumstatnial evidence and hearsay. 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. For each
such case which is proved fraudulent, there exist hundreds, thousands
of accounts which have not been so proved. As the conditions of each
case may vary and are generally not well known, it is not sufficient to
use the few cases of negative results to scientifically refute all claims.


While currently accepted science may presently provide no mechanism to 
explain or even observe many of these phenomena, that doesn't rule out
the possibility of it doing so sometime in the future. It is only 
pseudoscience before it becomes science (or is soundly scientifically
refuted). Thus to hold the skeptical belief that such phenomena have some 
explanation using currently accepted science or is otherwise fraudulent, 
WITHOUT any EVIDENCE to support this, is to rely on FAITH in this necessarily
incomplete current scientific world view. I further claim that this 
faith must prejudice ones critical thought, providing an element of
irrationality.


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".

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

Skepticism based on direct knowledge and/or experience is useful. If some
report defies what I know or have experienced to be otherwise, then I am 
skeptical. However, I freely admit to large chasms in my direct 
knowledge and experiences. So, if I were confronted with some report
which referred to an area of which I have no sound knowledge or experience,
then I can only bear it in mind for future investigation, rather than
simply dismiss it based on some belief in a contrary world view.

 
I have a scientific curiosity, not an unwavering faith in my beliefs.

Mark.

PS. I have some crystals with enormous healing potential available. Just
contact me for some very reasonable prices. But Hurry! Its only while
stocks last.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic