From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Consensus: Too Sluggish or Too Hasty?
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:39:49 GMT
Reply-To: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU

In article <pgkj+#c.sheaffer@netcom.com>, 
sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes...

>> (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>>     I cannot think of a single example in
>>>     modern skepticism of something that was "debunked" that didn't
>>>     subsequently turn out to be "bunk". Can anyone help jog my memory
>>>   

I let's turn this statement into a "claim" for a moment.  I can illustrate
an interesting (IMHO) viewpoint thereby.

Claim 1:   Modern Skepticism has never, so far, debunked anything that was 
           subsequently found to be true.

Now, let's form a slightly different "claim",

Claim 2:  PSICOP has never, so far, debunked anything that was subsequently 
          found to be true.

Claim 2 is a reasonable claim.  Given an agreement between proponents and
opponents for the meaning of "PSICOP debunking" something [such as "publishing
a debunking article in "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine], evidence could
conceivably be presented to "falsify" this claim.  

I propose, however, that Claim 1 is _not_falsifiable_.

Any attempt to falsify Claim 1 will require prior agreement on the meaning
of the phrases (a) "Modern Skepticism debunking somethin" and  (b) "found to
be true".  I predict that any attempt to falsify Claim 1 will, in fact, be
answered by its proponents by sliding the definitions of these 2 phrases
around to make the Claim "fit" the historical facts.  In fact, you can see that
this has already happened in the instance of the "continental drift" counter-
example.  In particular, (a) gets awfully loose here.  Until the formation
of PSICOP (and arguably, even thereafter) there was _no_ unique, identifiable-
over-time-or-space-boundaries association that could lay claim to passing
"Modern Skepticism"'s judgement on _anything_.  Instead, various "authorities"
(and of varying degrees of authority), specializing in various fields of
endeavor, made relatively _individual_ calls on the validity of unorthodox
ideas.   I seem to recall that this state of affairs was one of the reasons
given for the formation of PSICOP in the first place.

So, to answer Robert's implied question, no.  You're probably right, modern 
skepticism was just as infallible in its "calls" as you state.  But that's only 
because "modern skepticism" (as you have used the term) didn't actually _exist_.
What "calls" were made were individual enough to give you all the "wriggling"
room you need to avoid any falsification proposed.  And _that's_ leaving
aside the whole problem with (b).  Between the two, you should have a fairly
unapproachable "claim".

> 
>-- 
>  
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
>  
> Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
> 
>     "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions
>     of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs 
>     embarked upon now ... in 1985, when it is calculated [under the most
>     optimistic scenario] that the major die-back will be over, ..."
>       
>                       Dr. Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968

Gene Battin
battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc