From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:14:21 GMT

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".

>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.

>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]

>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. :-)

>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.

Internal martial arts?  Can you cause internal injuries with that?

>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.

>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."

>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? ....

>I 
>agree with scientific rigor, however, sceptics have a pre-existing
>prejudice.

This seems to be a very strong prejudice of yours.

>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?

>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.

>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?

>[..] 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?

-- 
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Science is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing available.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins