From: fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Subject: Re: Re: Faith and skeptics.
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:23:28 GMT

|> 
|> So waht?  The "extreme" skeptic has been discussed here many times.  Why set up
|> strawmen to shoot at?

Why not, if some of these "strawmen" may exist. You may ask why study
schisophrenia when the majority don't seem to suffer from it. Address the
topic of discussion, not the reason it is being discussed.

|> > 
|> > 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.
|> > 
|> 
|> You miss the point.  The current scientific world  view is that the scientific
|> method works!  Based on that, there is not a whole helluva lot of good
|> searching credible scientific work for the holes.  It is on the fringes of
|> reason that skeptics are usually blasted for applying the scientific method,
|> but that is where it is most needed.  You definitely do not need to know "all 
|> there is to know" to ask, "Where is your evidence, how did you collect it, and
|> is it repeatable?"

Who missed the point? Did you mean to type the word "not"?

First let me draw upon a simple analogy to illustrate a point:
A mountain is viewed with the eyes. The view is the mountain. The tool for
viewing is the eyes. The interpretation of the data sent from the eyes is
performed by the brain (or so it is believed).

It is because the scientific method seems to work, that we are able to
build this scientific world view. No scientist, using the scientific method,
starts from first principals. One often hears "Why reinvent the wheel" 
shouted about the place. Many scientists rely on their intuition to
make value judgements as to what is, what is not and what could be.
The scientific method is the tool (like the eyes) used by scientists.
What they see is the current scientific world view (like the mountain),
and what they then interpret this scientific world view with is their brains
(or so it is believed).


|> 
|> 
|> > 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?
|> 
|> The world view is the scientific method, _not_ all of the evidence that
|> supports certain theories by not disproving them.  If by "incomplete", you mean
|> lacking evidence, then you and the skeptics are in the same boat.  Because this
|> is where the fringed subjects usually breakdown.  My world view asks for
|> evidence.  IMHO, I presume to make the assumption that you might not need
|> evidence to believe in something, but my evidence for that is weak.
|> 
|> Being that your other statements have such limited validity, I am not sure that
|> the rest of the paragraph is worth dealing with.

I feel my preceeding discussion has sufficiently dealt with this paragraph.

|> > 
|> > |> 
|> > |> >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?
|> > 
|> It is rational because it comes from a rational method.  Whatever the data and
|> evidence tell you is the answer, not your beliefs.  Oh well, I guess strawmen
|> are more fun.
|> 

A rational tool may be used irrationally (Socrates often discovered this). The
human mind may harbour prejudice. Prejudice would seem to be irrational. Thus
a prejudiced individual may use a rational tool incorrectly to give an irrational
result. Remember, a gun doesn't kill. Just the people who use it. 

[ irrelevent content deleted]

|> Hoo-hah!  Does this mean that you were withholding evidence (not telling the
|> net what you really think)? 

No. I am using these net discussions to sharpen my ideas on the topic.


[again an irrelevant mass deleted]

|> > 
|> > 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)
|> >  
|> Why didn't you say that these were religious beliefs?  

Because they're not. I don't have any evidence currently available because
I can not accurately access every part of my memory inorder to draw forth
the precise details. I you have never heard far-fetched explanations of,
so far, unexplained phenomena, then you live in a different environment to
me. Given that there is no fundamental explanation for anything, and that we
all must work with a certain amount of axioms, I believe that my conclusion
is not too unscientific. 

|> [...]
|> > |> >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.
|> 
|> The evidence is in this posting.  If your own words don't mean what they say,
|> then please rephrase.  You mention that you have no data then that your view is
|> established using observational data. Which is it?  We have at least proof by
|> contradiction  that you are not clear if you have data or do not.
|> [...]

Unfortunately you comprehension seems to be very low at this point. I believe
the above paragraph to hold incorrect statements regarding contradiction.
I state that skeptical thought can be subject to prejudice. I am NOT 
critisizing skeptical thought, but rather the fact that critical thought 
is compromised by prejudice. Furthermore, I propose that this prejudice may
be brought about by belief in an interpretation of an incomplete current
scientific world view.

|> > 
|> > 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".
|> 
|> So what else is new?  When did you last study freshman physics?

Ten years ago. I now tutor it though.

[ more deleted]

|> > 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?
|> 
|> This I believe is the second incidence of the word "extreme."  Please eliminate
|> the strawman.

Have you checked youself for straw lately? 

|> [...]
|> > 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.
|> 
|> Wonderful. The scientific method  can only disprove a theory.  Did we know this
|> already?  Why am I replying to this?  This is a joke?
|> 
|> GXKambic
|> standard enuff tiem wasted alrady disclaimer

I have gathered that your posting was a joke. I don't think it does credit
to the other fine replys.


BTW, they say physcists make bad philosophers. I think computer scientists
may be worse. :^)

Mark.
(Hurry Hurry. Last days. Crystal clearence sale. Quality healing crystals
at affordable prices!)

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors