The Role of the Skeptic

Post Reply New Topic

This is what I think the role of skeptic should be.

A. Encourage Critical thought and Critical thinking. This also means to take great care to never to fall into the trap of scientism. Scientism is the idea that science is the only valid way to understand our existence, the universe and how we can best live our lives. Science is but a tool not the end all be all. And, sometimes this means to question the philosophy and logic behind science, the principles and methods as well in certain contexts. Can we understand and accept a truth as being true without having to prove it under scientific conditions?

B. Come up with methods and techniques or use current workable techniques to get of or reduce the amount of fraud that takes place. And, that includes deceiving oneself. The mind can fool itself as James Randi has demonstrated with Dousing and the Idemotor affect. If someone claims to be psychic then it is up to that supposed psychic to demonstrate their ability using the scientific method and double blind tests with other scientists help. It is not up to the scientist to disprove God, spiritualism, psychic abilities as these things in of themselves are unfalsifiable.

C. Be open to new ideas like ghosts and spirits but in particular situations test for mundane things. Example: Let's say one is hearing sounds or seeing things. Get everyone who has been in the house drug tested to see if they're under some kind of drug. Test for different gases that may produce hallucinations. Maybe some of the people have brain tumors. Test for that. The goal is not to disprove ghosts but to to see if one can factor out mundane causes such as I described. If one is feeling that eerie feeling get the place tested to determine if there is infrasound. Infrasound causes feelings of uneasiness and other eerie feelings.

What does everyone think so far?

Does anyone else have any other ideas?

James Randi did a lot of the things I suggested with his paranormal challenge. Unfortunately, it no longer exists as he retired. And, Randi showed how it was possible to bend spoons like Yuri Geller without any powers as all.

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse "skeptic" with "cynic" and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo.  This is wrong.  Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims.  It is the application of reason to any and all ideas -- no sacred cows allowed.  In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position.  Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true.  When we say we are "skeptical", we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena.  A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement.  But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.  Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid.  Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.

The primary missions of skeptics are (1) the investigation of science and pseudoscience controversies, and (2) the promotion of critical thinking.  We investigate claims that are testable or capable of being examined.  If someone says she believes in G^D based on faith, then we do not have much to say about it.  If someone says he believes in God and he can prove it through rational arguments or empirical evidence, then -- like Harry Truman -- we say "show me." ... or perhaps "Evidence, Please?" ...

Makes sense to me. Be open minded, but hard headed. To capsulize it.

This is a well thought out, excellent explanation of what a skeptic does and what skepticism is.

I would like to say something to you if you don't mind. A lot of us are not scientists so we wouldn't really know or understand some of your terms. I can look things up but it is not the same as going to school for it and doing experiments under laboratory conditions. I wouldn't know what was considered compelling evidence unless it was explained to me. Let's say I wanted to prove let's say ghosts and that they did exist. What is the compelling evidence that is required? As I'm not a scientist I would not know. Without a concrete definition of "compelling evidence" that scientists agree upon then compelling evidence becomes subjective.

It is the same with that math problem you said the student over complicated. As, I'm not a mathematician I literally don't know how you and the teacher derive the answer you both derived and I really would like to understand. Why was my answer wrong and the student's wrong?

It depends on your definition of "ghost". Einstein denied the possibility for quantum entanglement (which has since been accepted as provable in an experimental setting), which he called "spooky action at a distance". This is certainly ghostlike or seemingly phantom behavior in physics seen on a very small scale. But generally "ghost" implies a number of very hard to prove aspects, such as 1) consciousness after death 2) connections between a material and immaterial world, 3) the existence of spirits, and so on. So you have a massive task to undertake to prove the existence of a ghost.

On the CIA website in their declassified archives, you can find claims of people doing things like bending metal with one's mind or removing insects from containers. There's a story of a guy who bent the metal of the key in everyone's pocket from a distance (these people were skeptics). If they are telling the truth about what happened, maybe something else bent the metal, I don't know (a kind of powerful magnet targeted specifically at metal contained in their keys, that they couldn't see?). In any case, there are many claims about strange and sometimes supernatural phenomena. Some of the sources are hard to corroborate but are still reputable.

Not if you are a skeptic. In that case, you would want evidence.

I don't accept the idea that empiricism is the end all and be all to understand reality. Life, reality, existence is more then that. Our ideas, proofs, evidence is the sum of our ideas and experiences. There was a time when cultures never thought about the concept of 0. I'm not sure but I think the mayan culture didn't do division or was it some other culture. I don't know. The very concepts of proof, empiricism, etc is based upon how a civilization chooses to interpret reality. How would math proofs look to a civilization who had no concept of 0 or division? Scientists do try their best to be impartial and look at objective facts? If a scientist is looking at those facts or proofs through a western, American lens then are they being objective and impartial or do they have a sort of bias themselves? And, some cultures don't go by the Julian Calendar. Some go by a lunar cycle which means some of these cultures would say that time is circular instead of linear.

Skeptics are usually from Western culture usually from the USA. The very thought process comes from that. So, would a western American culture thinking person's thought process allow certain things to be claimed as compelling evidence? Could it be possible that the very thought process that western American culture has make scientists miss certain things in the whole skepticism and scientific process? If this is possible then can scientists fall into biases themselves and have they in our past especially when it comes to different cultures who have a different thought process then western culture does?

Another thing...

There is Truth with a capital T and then there is truth with a small case t. There are certain truths that are true for me. I can't prove at this time whether an afterlife, spirits, etc exist but choose to have faith that there is one and mother who died back in 2015 is happy in that afterlife. It gives me comfort and that is a truth for me. This is not something that is provable and I don't think I need to prove it to myself or anyone in some laboratory.

And ...

There are truths that are simply evident.

I exist. Right now, I'm thinking about the concept of my existence by the very act of typing and discussing this. If I did not exist then how would I be thinking to even type and talk about my own existence. So, it is self-evident that I must exist. I don't need empirical evidence to prove I exist because to conceive the concept of my own existence I must exist. I exist is a self-evident truth.

Good answers!

But, then it leads to further questions. And, I do like the CIA stuff you posted.

Before can even prove consciousness after death we would have to define what it means for consciousness when one is alive? What is consciousness?

And, what is the material vs the immaterial world? One would have to define these things as well?

And, then we would have to define what existence is?

I'm not a scientist like Fnord is. I will keep reiterating that. But,wouldn't it make sense for something to be testable and provable then it has to be something that is specific and concrete?

I’m pretty much an atheistic empiricist.

But if someone finds comfort in a loved one being comfortable in an “afterlife,” who am I to contradict that person?

I am one who hopes my atheism is wrong.

Thanks. Yes exactly...it is thus very hard to prove or disprove the existence of a ghost, given that it's such a nebulous (literally and figuratively) thing.

But in theory, yes you would have to define consciousness. Let's call it...the persistence of the experience of being a specific person, and having a unique memory and identity associated with that person...after death.

To prove this persists after death, we have to be able to "meet" this consciousness somehow (once the physical body of the person has passed on). In this case, the ghost carries the consciousness, so we'd have to be able to communicate with the ghost, to verify it is in fact a vessel for this consciousness.

The material and immaterial worlds...I think that basically we have to say that the material world is what we can observe. The immaterial world is that which we have little or no evidence of. Basically everything we experience can be traced on some level to a mapping in the material world. If there's no correspondent mapping, then this is something immaterial.

Thus in order to even validate the possibility for an immaterial world, it must somehow connect to the material world (otherwise how would we even know of its existence?). With something like a ghost, you could have an impression on the material world in the form of eyewitness accounts. But we also know that what is seen in the material world by humans can be mapped to a) physical phenomena external to the person (seeing objects or events) or b) psychological phenomena internal to the person (the mind playing tricks on itself). So we would first have to rule out b.

To define existence, we can use it interchangeably with the material world. The immaterial world, being unsubstantiated, is only theoretical at best, so we can't necessarily call it existent. We can say ideas or possibilities of it are existent, but those can be traced to material counterparts, such as mere ideas in the mind (which can be mapped as not extending beyond electrical impulses in the brains in neurons and so forth). Whether these ideas have counterparts beyond the brain/mind is something that requires more evidence in the external physical world.

Of course we don't understand everything about the brain/mind, but at least we understand it as a system functioning in the material world.

You're a cool dude Kraftie!

I totally agree with everything you say here.

I do have an idea where one could start. Could it be possible for objects including life forms which are of macro size to yet not be perceived by certain frequencies. Think of the electromagnetic spectrum. What if there were objects that can't be seen on the visible spectrum (set of frequencies the human eye can perceive on the electromagnetic spectrum) yet can only be perceived by building a device which could allow you to perceive frequencies outside of the visible spectrum.

There are sounds dogs can hear but humans can't.

So, could this be some sort of starting point? And, it begs the question why haven't we been able to ever feel these things then. Is the electromagnetic spectrum a part of human touch as well and the sense of touch can only perceive certain frequencies as well?

I have a hypothesis on quantum entanglement of particles. For this to happen, the particles must have a higher dimensional connection (greater than 4-D) that formed during the conversion from electromagnetic energy to matter. One can think of the space-time continuum as being a flat plane (much like a piece of paper). If you took a needle and threaded a string through a fold in the paper, those two points (representing particles) are now connected by the string (representing the quantum entanglement). If you pull on the string, it affects both points at the same time. This is my best visual way to explain the relationship without getting too technical with the terminology. Can the above relationship being higher dimensionality be absolutely proven with our technology? Highly doubtful, but scientists will still try to do so.

If they were to exist, then sure...these would be conceivable ways to look for them and potentially find them. There are four possibilities: 1) they exist and we aren't finding them, 2) they exist and we are finding them, 3) they don't exist and we aren't finding them, 4) they don't exist and we are finding them. So how can we tell the difference between cases with identical result (we are finding them or not) yet opposite factual underpinning? If we're skeptical of all cases, we'll get closer and closer to the truth in each case...or we will in fact deconstruct the truth and point out that there's no good reason to believe it over time. The truth here is not known to us necessarily from inquiry but I'm giving it as a factual omniscient background.

One example from history illustrating possibilities:

Possibility 1: Jesus did rise from the dead. I didn't see Jesus rise from the dead. But I should continue to be open to proof that he did, because in this scenario, it's true that he did. Eventually I'll either see the proof or I'll maintain skepticism and be unconvinced.
Possibility 2: Jesus did rise from the dead. I did see Jesus rise from the dead. But I should be skeptical of what I saw, because I know that my mind can deceive me. Maybe over time I am even won over to the other side and convinced what I saw was not real.

Etc.

Sure, that makes sense. This is kind of like Einstein's theory that the particles were somehow connected in the first place and they're not really "communicating" or somehow "traveling" instantaneously. An analogy was that a pair of gloves were put in separate boxes. They form a full set, so when you look at the left glove box, you automatically know the other box will contain the right glove (regardless of its location).

Why do skeptics need a "role"? Skepticism is not a job or any kind of public position that anyone is relying on. Skeptics can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.