The Role of the Skeptic

Post Reply New Topic

Does that include denying you an education, employment, and/or housing because you could not provide proof of identity, degree status, job history, and/or residency?

"I'm sorry, you have not provided the right paperwork ... maybe next time?  Thank you.  Next!"

Skepticism is what prevents dishonest people from lying and scamming their way into positions and situations they don't deserve -- cheating or "gaming" the system is getting progressively tougher to do, thanks to skeptics.

Unfortunately, the biggest scams are currently being perpetrated by the people at the very top of the socioeconomic ladder.  Someone in charge who wants to remain in charge will lie, cheat, steal, and spread false rumors about their opposition.  Unfortunately, there are hordes of gullible people for whom such deceit is like sugar on their lips -- they lap it up and want more, more, more!

Skepticism puts those people at the top back out on the streets, and leaves their followers wondering, "What the Hell just happened?" without anything but the truth to give them comfort -- cold comfort, I might add!

Too bad for them, eh?

Empiricism is a philosophy. The scientific method covers more than that as science is not limited to sensory experience. And science is also more than ideas and experience--no one has experienced a sub-atomic particle, but science has certainly shown them to exist.

I am skeptical of your postmodernist argument that the scientific method is a form of cultural bias, partly because the scientific method does not have a cultural limit and is practiced all over the world. If it was cultural, simply performing science in Japanese, for example, would result in a "Japanese" bias. There is no evidence that the science done in Japanese or Japan is any less rigorous or has different outcomes.

But your argument is not whether you are a skeptic, but whether you want to believe in whatever you choose. That is fine, but outside the question of skepticism. I am happy for you to have your beliefs, just as I have mine.

But since we are on a discussion of skepticism, how do I know that you do exist simply because you posted some text? Perhaps the Wrong Planet is just a sophisticated Turing Test. Not so self-evident after all.

I think therefore I am.

The rock does not think, therefore it isn't.

Yet, scientists have built detectors to detect these subatomic particles. It is true that no one has experienced a sub-atomic particle yet what are the senses we use to build these detectors and what not? What are these devices based off of? We still use the senses of the mind and body even if indirectly. Things are still based off of sight, smell, touch, hearing, and taste. There are other senses as well.



The thing is though it would seem there is a research paper out there who is on the nih website and more then likely is peer reviewed. I think I can reasonably conclude the NIH is a well reputable source of information.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6415937/

It seems like these researchers are making the claim there are philosophical biases in sciences of a non-empirical nature "such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research." Part of their conclusion says "Instead, we need to develop a culture in the scientific community for critically discussing conceptual and meta-empirical issues: this should involve universities, research institutes and journals...."

These are some of the things I've been saying as well or at least trying to say.



That's not my argument! My argument is that skeptics can have a bias themselves.



To answer your question we would have to discuss ontology and epistemology. What does it mean to exist and what is possible to understand of our own existence? Let's say WP is nothing but a turing test and I'm a part of that turing test and I think I'm real then what does it mean to be real? What does it mean to exist? And, what does it mean to prove and for whom am I to prove something to?

Is it good enough to simply accept that it is self-evident for me that because I think about existence and the nature of existence, that I have some form of consciousness and therefore I exist? Why or why not?







You have a fallacy in your reasoning.

It's like your claiming that since all jelly beans are a form of candy then all forms of candies are jelly beans. That is not so.

But, if a being things and it implies that they exist then does that mean that something that exists thinks?

If therefore I think I am is true then does that mean that I am therefore I think is true as well? No, it is not true at all that the original statement does not have equal value its converse.

A is B does not mean that B is A.

Mathematics and statistics are not based on sight, smell, touch, hearing, or taste.





Absolutely, scientists, since they are human, can be biased. My argument is not that people are biased, but the scientific method is not biased. This is where skepticism is an important tool to evaluate the research to see if there is bias--and you can do that in the scientific method as the bias of the scientist can be tested. If you are saying any form of inquiry is valid, religion for example, then you need to except any bias as valid. I do not agree with that, at least for the function of skepticism.





Naturally. Humans are clock a block full of bias. That is why frameworks such as the scientific method can counter those biases.



I am taking it on faith you are not a Turing machine. We don't live or function using the scientific method very well. And there are certainly frameworks that are very human, the concept of being lucky for example, that are very useful for people to live their lives. However, if I was skeptical of your existence, I would not toss a coin or use a diving rod to decide it.



[/quote]

Which is why I prefer science over philosophy.

Fnord, is your response arguing against what Starkid says or agreeing with it (or neither)? I think both your points are valid but I don't see what they have to do with each other.

Is there a rule that says everything I post must either agree or disagree with what someone else has posted?

Can't another person's post simply inspire me to post something of my own?

Good points from both sides...but want to interject that I think mathematics and statistics are very much based on sight, smell, taste, etc. (our sensation of the physical/material world). They were/are derived from our interactions with the material world...and are represented materially. Even in their vaguest form (as thoughts or ideas in the mind), we can understand this in terms of physical brain activity. This is why earlier I tried to explain (maybe ineffectively) that the material world should really include everything known. If it's unknown, then it's immaterial. Once it becomes known...necessarily we have understood it through material means. You can have an idea of a ghost, and that's a material thing (the idea), but the ghost itself can still be immaterial (if in fact you are only talking about an idea in the mind with no corresponding physical evidence). That's how my mind works anyway.

Excellent Response!

Yes of course it can. If I'd wanted to stop you doing that I'd have criticised your words, not merely asked you a simple question about them.

Thank you for your explanation, that the relationship between Starkid's post and your own was that Starkid's idea inspired yours. I was merely curious because I couldn't (and still can't) see much of a link between the two. Doesn't mean there is no link, just that I can't see it very clearly, but I don't particularly have to.

That is an interesting idea, but I think more with philosophy. For example, are Klingons real? By your definition, because we have the idea or image, they are. But they are clearly a fiction--just actors dressed up in a costume. Is the experience of schizophrenia real? Because it is simply the product of a psychology/neurology, do we then accept the experience as objective fact? The experience of the person is real, but it does not place that experience beyond the person experiencing it. And this is where 'sensation' becomes complex. I could see a three-headed dragon after taking LSD, while I can argue that I did experienced it, I could not argue that these dragons exist. Which brings us back to where ideas and opinions are sensations (although not in terms of empiricism). Does the sensation only have to be individual or does it have to be universal--able to be sensed by others.

But placing this in a the concept of skepticism, this becomes such a broad definition where skepticism cannot be applied because everything become valid and there is no reference from which to make a judgement. The scientific method attempts to create an objective measure from which to judge a claim. Basically, it sets up a condition that can be falsified. If there is no way to show something is false, then there is no way to show it is true either.

As far as mathematics and statistics being our sensation of the physical or material world, quantum mechanics is driven by both disciplines and does not represent our experience of the material or physical world. Also, mathematics can be entirely abstract. And some of that abstract thought has been applied to quantum mechanics.

We seem to be getting to a basic contradiction facing everyone. On one hand, we should be open to new ideas and ways of thinking. On the other, the skepticism side, we want to be able to judge the validity of those ideas.

It also touches on the how to live a human life. There are some ideas that will not hold up to inquiry, but are important to live that life. Those are very valid positions. But it also comes down to why you are being skeptical. Are are you trying to solve an issue? For example, are you trying to create policy to solve real problems? At that case, you need a framework in which to judge a policy. You want to be able to separate ideology from fact. You want to separate a bad idea from a good one. And that is tough because people hold onto their beliefs very tightly. But beliefs cannot make bad policy good or even true.

Over the last several years, many open-minded skeptics (aware of ASD) have also become more aware of just how to better understand HFA - that is an understanding beyond classic Autism; to better acknowledge HFA.

Understanding that "never-never land of sorts" of not being disabled enough, or quite able enough still proves elusive to many otherwise thoughtful NTs, skeptics, etc.

Reminds me of a song from a old movie “ Rocky Horror Show “. Let’s Do the Time Warp Again.

I feel that there must always be some universality...let's just call this general verifiability. Otherwise we're dealing with speculation (at best) and complete delusion (at worst). The LSD example surely shows that we have a good explanation that this is a hallucination in the mind caused by the drug, and that the dragon is not physically there. However, the dragon may have psychological or spiritual resonance with the person, and could have symbolic value in his or her life. So, these individual subjective experiences can nevertheless be relevant -- but it's important to draw the line between the material and immaterial worlds, confidently asserting that the dragon only exists materially in the form of brain chemistry (not outside the brain in the external landscape), or maybe we could also say that it exists in some unsubstantiated form within the matter of the LSD itself. We can confidently know this due to the general verifiability I talked about. No one else not on LSD is seeing the dragon, there's no alternate explanation that would make as much sense as the one we have, etc. Same goes for the example of a psychotic person's hallucinations and delusions. It may be real to them, but it's not real to the rest of us, and we know that the brain can have errors. So, there isn't the complimentary correspondence between idea and manifestation that is needed, for something to tick both boxes and enter into the realm of what we might call material validity.



To me it seems to make sense to look at mathematics and statistics as related to the physical world...in some cases more than others. They were certainly derived from our physical, sensate experience. But like things such as art and science, they can delve into abstraction as well. Even as abstractions, ideally they should still have that material validity I talked about (correspondence with physical reality). I think in their ideal, relevant form, they do have material validity. For example, if the arithmetics are sound, they will add up in a calculator. There may be higher theories of math, but they are expected to withold scrutiny and to still make sense in a logical way. Otherwise this is delving off into the region of the guy on LSD or the schizophrenic (subjective experience understood as happening mainly within the individual mind rather than external to it).



I say that if there isn't a good bridge from subjective experience to objective experience...call this an agreement, a correspondence, a reflection, between the inner experience of truth in the mind, and the external verification of that truth...then there is no particularly good reason the common person should be expected to follow along with any proposition.

This is a complex subject and I am not really sure how divergent views are here. I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I am just going to do a bit of free-form thought with no particular goal in mind.

In the case of mental experience, it is certainly true for the person. It can also be validated through observation, even if that is simply an interview. While the experience is not real in any physical sense, it is real cognitively. And this can be distinguished from someone faking such an experience--fMRI among other methods. So it is measurable.

I guess how is this judged? The subjective part is a problem for me--if it sounds true to me, it must be correct is a bit dodgy. The problem is our subjective experience can be diametrically opposed to the actual outcome. Various forms of addition show the person's perception of the addition is very different to its actual outcome. How may of us here have said, "Mom, trust me, I know what I am doing." Naturally, mom is skeptical as she probably has run that experiment before.

But likewise, things like religious experience, while not an actual physical experience, can bring great benefit. The placebo effect is a similar thing. The cause ascribed to the ritual or thing can be wrong, but it does not invalidate the outcome. On a personal level, the illusion is valuable. There is no need to offer other explanations. However, there may be a good reason to understand the underlying mechanism--this is science and the skepticism is valuable.

The question posed in this thread is the role of skepticism. I read that is questioning a particular position. But that also implies investigating whether it is sound as well. Simply rejecting a position because it conflicts with a particular world view is not skepticism. Likewise, skepticism is not necessary to live a rich and rewarding life. And while skepticism certainly can be useful on a personal level, I think it is more of a universal or broad process to solve problems and acquire knowledge. I certainly don't need to question everything I think or believe because they enrich my life and understanding the actual process does not change the benefit. Skepticism for the sake of skepticism is just annoying.

I basically agree with you, and imagine we wouldn't be altogether divergent in our views.

Sure. It's true that this can often amount to a big, complicated thing...to bridge subjective experience with objective experience. How can we effectively see beyond our own biases? It's hard to do. Religion is a good example. Not long ago on a thread, I mentioned how an evangelist shared what he felt was very strong evidence with me, about Jesus' resurrection, which seemed to form the lynchpin of his entire belief system, and he felt I would have no choice but to believe when I had seen this evidence. I quickly found that he was quite likely biased by *wanting* to believe. He really must have wanted to believe and had an emotional investment in believing -- either that or he can't think critically (or both), because when he revealed the evidence, I found it to be very lacking in substance. I on the other hand didn't particularly want to believe...which is maybe an inherently skeptical standpoint. Also, I have studied both cults and religions sufficiently (which doesn't have to be a great deal) to see the same kinds of operative assumptions among the two. So when I saw his reasoning, I was unconvinced and wrote him off.

One day I'm leaning one direction and maybe even approaching certainty that I have the answer about something, and then the next day I change my mind when new data comes into light and I'm leaning in another direction. So there are degrees of truth and certainty, and until something is proved 100%, it can change forms and be all kinds of things...like putting together the explanation for a crime. I think it's good to not be attached until we arrive at that 100%, but to still be smart in how we form conclusions and to have confidence when there's a high likelihood. I often do think in terms of probabilities and try to narrow down based on how likely something is statistically.

Aside: My commentary on Christian Doctrine.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? My answer is that it makes no sense for him to have risen from the dead since Jesus is God and God can't die in the first place. God has the trinity the father, the son and the holy ghost. All are a part of God and are God. Jesus never died on the cross since he is God and God can't die. It was simulated death at best.