Skeptical Approaches: Exploring the Two Camps of Scientific Skepticism

  • Thread starter Zero
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Philosophy
I say to that?I say don't worry about it. In summary, the conversation discusses the different types of skeptics - those who reject anything not accepted by science and those who try to debunk ideas with reason and evidence. The conversation also delves into the topic of religion and how it can be seen as both a problem and a potential solution. The importance of understanding the underlying need for religion is emphasized and the possibility of bridging the gap between science and religion is mentioned.
  • #36
No, I mean it by "weighing the benefit of the doubt" -- afraid you can't get away from that -- and concluding which "logical" choice to take.
Sounds ok to me.
So then, maybe there is some higher form of intelligence over here to my side of things afterall?
I’ll let you know after I’ve reached a conclusion I can have faith in.
? Hmm ... Faith is just a matter of existence. I hate to tell you this!
Oh, I already understood it in that way, thanks. Just making certain you weren’t going off the edge…

All the more reason to be open to reevaluating things from time to time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I mean it by "weighing the benefit of the doubt" -- afraid you can't get away from that -- and concluding which "logical" choice to take. So then, maybe there is some higher form of intelligence over here to my side of things afterall? Hmm ... Faith is just a matter of existence. I hate to tell you this!

I think the point of skepticism is creating the proper screening process for new ideas. You give ideas the benefit of teh doubt...but some get a lot less benefit than others.
 
  • #38
Originally posted by Zero
You should really read his site, you know? He is as upfront as anyone I have witnessed. And, what is the circus, expecting people to prove things or stop making claims?
Actually I saw him on a Nova program, something about the "Secrets of the Russian Psychics?" and, while it was a pretty good program, he struck me as nothing but pompous, arrogant, stubborn, presumptuous and totally engrossed in his whole unique "world view." Does this sound anything like Rush Limbaugh by the way? So really what I think it all boils down to is "pandering" to what other people might want to hear.
 
  • #39
Originally posted by Zero
I think the point of skepticism is creating the proper screening process for new ideas. You give ideas the benefit of teh doubt...but some get a lot less benefit than others.
Yes, that would be due to the benefit of experience, as well as preference.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, that would be due to the benefit of experience, as well as preference.

Well, if you are a skeptic, your preference would be for things with logical basis, rather than emotional or anecdotal basis.
 
  • #41
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually I saw him on a Nova program, something about the "Secrets of the Russian Psychics?" and, while it was a pretty good program, he struck me as nothing but pompous, arrogant, stubborn, presumptuous and totally engrossed in his whole unique "world view." Does this sound anything like Rush Limbaugh by the way? So really what I think it all boils down to is "pandering" to what other people might want to hear.


The people Randi busts are usually big time multi-million dollar a year scam artists. Once, however, he trained several people how to fool experts and then sent them around to something like four hundred reputable psychic research institutes across the country. Not once did these people get caught and when finished they went back and explained they had fooled these people and offered to show them how they had done it. Those who refused to listen to how they had been fooled had their names published in the subsequent book.

Personally, I don't think Randi's confrontational brand of skepticism is doing much except to show the faithful don't have a lock on hatred. He's complained about peoples' complaints about his aggressive style as well. In my opinion, what he does is similar to cops working the ghetto. That he is both respected, feared, and deplored by people on sides of the issue comes as no surprise... except it seems to Randi himself.

What he seems to have missed, again, is the opportunity to be skeptical about his own motivations and methods.
 
  • #42
Originally posted by Kerrie
i think as a general rule, each individual should

QUESTION EVERYTHING

for themselves...this means to think for yourself, and not be insulted, swayed, brainwashed by what another individual has to say unless you 100% completely agree with them for your own reasons...

that to me is skeptical philosophy...
Perfect ! :smile:
Except that I'd remove the word "skeptical"
from the last sentence. :wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #43
Originally posted by drag
Perfect ! :smile:
Except that I'd remove the word "skeptical"
from the last sentence. :wink:

Live long and prosper.

Well, any philosophy should contain a bit of skepicism, don't you think?
 
  • #44
Originally posted by wuliheron
The people Randi busts are usually big time multi-million dollar a year scam artists. Once, however, he trained several people how to fool experts and then sent them around to something like four hundred reputable psychic research institutes across the country. Not once did these people get caught and when finished they went back and explained they had fooled these people and offered to show them how they had done it. Those who refused to listen to how they had been fooled had their names published in the subsequent book.

Personally, I don't think Randi's confrontational brand of skepticism is doing much except to show the faithful don't have a lock on hatred. He's complained about peoples' complaints about his aggressive style as well. In my opinion, what he does is similar to cops working the ghetto. That he is both respected, feared, and deplored by people on sides of the issue comes as no surprise... except it seems to Randi himself.

What he seems to have missed, again, is the opportunity to be skeptical about his own motivations and methods.
Yeah, the only thing that I think Randi has proved, is how gullible people can be. He didn't "necessarily" have to chose the field of religion in order to demonstrate this, to say the least. Fraud is something you have to deal with on a daily basis. Even with your kids perhaps, when they come home and say they're going to do something, and then run off and do something they were "advised" not to do.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yeah, the only thing that I think Randi has proved, is how gullible people can be. He didn't "necessarily" have to chose the field of religion in order to demonstrate this, to say the least. Fraud is something you have to deal with on a daily basis. Even with your kids perhaps, when they come home and say they're going to do something, and then run off and do something that they were "advised" not to do.

I think Randi has proved more than that, he has proven that supposidly objective scientists were not objective and that public tax dollars were being wasted. Not just by gullible people, but by people who had blinders on. In the process it seems he has been confronted with his own blinders. :0)
 
  • #46
Originally posted by wuliheron
I think Randi has proved more than that, he has proven that supposidly objective scientists were not objective and that public tax dollars were being wasted. Not just by gullible people, but by people who had blinders on. In the process it seems he has been confronted with his own blinders. :0)
And yet the one thing he's not going to prove, is that God doesn't exist, which I'm afraid is what so much of the hoopla is all about. So he doesn't earn any points in my book in that respect.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the one thing he's not going to prove, is that God doesn't exist, which I'm afraid is what so much of the hoopla is all about. So he doesn't earn any points in my book in that respect.

LOL, bring up that silly 'you can't prove God doesn't exist' stuff, why don't you!
 
  • #48
Originally posted by Zero
LOL, bring up that silly 'you can't prove God doesn't exist' stuff, why don't you!
The thing is, I base it upon the likely probably that He does exist, so in that respect it's not silly.
 
  • #49
Zero - ones truth bends around emotion like a mass bends space and time. In both cases the mass/emotion bend reality into the emotion making all appear in favor, and blocking the truth.
 
  • #50
Originally posted by Iacchus32
The thing is, I base it upon the likely probably that He does exist, so in that respect it's not silly.
Gotta have faith in something, right?
 
  • #51
Originally posted by Iacchus32
The thing is, I base it upon the likely probably that He does exist, so in that respect it's not silly.


Likelihood that "God" exists? How in the @*$^ing hell were you able to twist statistics so much? Your emotion is way out of hand...
 
  • #52
Originally posted by Iacchus32
The thing is, I base it upon the likely probably that He does exist, so in that respect it's not silly.

Part of what I feel is vital to a skeptical outlook is not believing until you have proof, instead of believing until you find disproof.
 
  • #53
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Zero - ones truth bends around emotion like a mass bends space and time. In both cases the mass/emotion bend reality into the emotion making all appear in favor, and blocking the truth.
Are you saying I would make such a claim because I want God to exist? or, that I "know" that He exists? That's a big difference. Whereas how could you possibly know the nature of my "emotional state?" Just because you interject that something is there doesn't make it so, I can assure you!

This applies to you too BoulderHead.
 
  • #54
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Likelihood that "God" exists? How in the @*$^ing hell were you able to twist statistics so much? Your emotion is way out of hand...
And since when do statistics have anything to do with an actual fact? (if what I'm saying is true). And what do emotions have to do with it?
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the one thing he's not going to prove, is that God doesn't exist, which I'm afraid is what so much of the hoopla is all about. So he doesn't earn any points in my book in that respect.

If everybody in the world were a believer or an atheist they'd still be raising a stink imo. More pointedly at stake are our personal values, the emotional context within which we view the world around us. Violence not only gets immediate and widespread attention, if sustained it can cause permanent physiological changes that in turn help to sustain the violence for generations.

LA is presenting an excellent example right here of what I mean. He is taking things totally out of context, cussing, and in general acting just as badly as the most foam at the mouth Bible Thumping evangalist. You'd have to do some fancy talking to convince me that if everybody in the world became Atheist right this second his behavior would improve much. :0)
 
  • #56
Oh, that's so sweet.

Originally posted by wuliheron
If everybody in the world were a believer or an atheist they'd still be raising a stink imo. More pointedly at stake are our personal values, the emotional context within which we view the world around us. Violence not only gets immediate and widespread attention, if sustained it can cause permanent physiological changes that in turn help to sustain the violence for generations.

LA is presenting an excellent example right here of what I mean. He is taking things totally out of context, cussing, and in general acting just as badly as the most foam at the mouth Bible Thumping evangalist. You'd have to do some fancy talking to convince me that if everybody in the world became Atheist right this second his behavior would improve much. :0)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
Originally posted by Zero
Part of what I feel is vital to a skeptical outlook is not believing until you have proof, instead of believing until you find disproof.
But where does the proof come from? And who's going to believe it when they see it? I can assure you, I'm just as skeptical as the next person.
 
  • #58
Originally posted by Iacchus32
But where does the proof come from? And who's going to believe it when they see it? I can assure you, I'm just as skeptical as the next person.

Sure you are...*grins*...and I don't doubt your intellect, for sure. I think we simply have a different definition of what constitutes evidence.
 
  • #59
Originally posted by Zero
Part of what I feel is vital to a skeptical outlook is not believing until you have proof, instead of believing until you find disproof.
This wouldn't work in a court of law either by the way, at least in the United States anyway.
 
  • #60
Originally posted by wuliheron
If everybody in the world were a believer or an atheist they'd still be raising a stink imo. More pointedly at stake are our personal values, the emotional context within which we view the world around us. Violence not only gets immediate and widespread attention, if sustained it can cause permanent physiological changes that in turn help to sustain the violence for generations.
It creates a "new reality" too now doesn't it?


LA is presenting an excellent example right here of what I mean. He is taking things totally out of context, cussing, and in general acting just as badly as the most foam at the mouth Bible Thumping evangalist. You'd have to do some fancy talking to convince me that if everybody in the world became Atheist right this second his behavior would improve much. :0)
Oh, I thought you were talking about Randi here for second ... And I was going, "What the heck?"
 
  • #61
Originally posted by Iacchus32
This wouldn't work in a court of law either by the way, at least in the United States anyway.

First, what's that got to do with anything?

And second, yes it would work in a US court of law. It all depends on what you take as the default position. In US courts, the default position is that the defendant is innocent. So, we do not believe in his guilt until it is proven. When contemplating reality, the most of us here at PF take atheism as the default position.
 
  • #62
Originally posted by Zero
Sure you are...*grins*...and I don't doubt your intellect, for sure. I think we simply have a different definition of what constitutes evidence.
The last thing I need to do is to accept God in the "exterior sense," because it has nothing to do with what's going on on the outside, but rather, what's going on on the inside. Which is really the only way it can any having meaning, by establishing it on the inside.
 
  • #63
Originally posted by Iacchus32
This wouldn't work in a court of law either by the way, at least in the United States anyway.

So? I'm not planning on suing you or anything!
 
  • #64
Originally posted by Iacchus32
The last thing I need to do is to accept God in the "exterior sense," because it has nothing to do with what's going on on the outside, but rather, what's going on on the inside. Which is really the only way it can any having meaning, by establishing it on the inside.

But, that makes it hard to claim that it has any external, objective reality, doesn't it?
 
  • #65
Originally posted by Tom
First, what's that got to do with anything?

And second, yes it would work in a US court of law. It all depends on what you take as the default position. In US courts, the default position is that the defendant is innocent. So, we do not believe in his guilt until it is proven. When contemplating reality, the most of us here at PF take atheism as the default position.
And yet the defendent it seems is God, in which case we're here to try and "prove" He was not the one responsible for Creation. In which case we would also have to admit there's not enough evidence to support this, beyond the preponderance of doubt, therefore case dismissed.

Of course that doesn't necessarily prove things one way or the other, but it doesn't disprove God exists either. And what do you mean by default position? Are you saying science is that sure of itself in claiming otherwise? That's not quite what I've heard. Afterall it does seem to be an issue between Science and God now doesn't it?
 
  • #66
Originally posted by Zero
But, that makes it hard to claim that it has any external, objective reality, doesn't it?
No, I'm just saying some things you just have to see and/or experience for yourself. Like falling in love for instance. How can you possibly objectify an experience like that? (not without rending it to pieces anyway).
 
  • #67
Originally posted by Iacchus32;
Are you saying I would make such a claim because I want God to exist? or, that I "know" that He exists? That's a big difference.
Well, if you claim to “know” that ‘He’ exists then I would wonder why you are so quick to repeatedly point out that we must take everything on ‘faith’’ (as you defined it earlier). If you make the claim because deep down you want God to exist, then of course you would likely be only fooling yourself.
So what I’m wondering about is your level of skeptism.
 
  • #68
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the defendent it seems is God, in which case we're here to try and "prove" He was not the one responsible for Creation.

No. If you follow the analogy, god finds its legal counterpart in the guilt of the defendant.

In which case we would also have to admit there's not enough evidence to support this, beyond the preponderance of doubt, therefore case dismissed.

I do admit that there is not enough evidence to support the negative claim.

Of course that doesn't necessarily prove things one way or the other, but it doesn't disprove God exists either.

Yes. So, when there is not one shred of evidence for or against god, why keep talking about it?

And what do you mean by default position?

I mean the position that one takes when one has not been indoctrinated or delusional. One either must be taught religion, or one must make it up. Atheism is what results when neither of those things take place.

Are you saying science is that sure of itself in claiming otherwise? That's not quite what I've heard. Afterall it does seem to be an issue between Science and God now doesn't it?

What are you talking about?
 
  • #69
Tom I disagree. There is NO evidence for the claim that any of the Gods in mythological texts exists.

But there is MONUMENTAL EVIDENCE that those Gods do not exist.

Logic, Statistics, and science all disprove such a God from existing.

I never understand why many atheists don't understand this, and can yet feel confident about atheism?
 
  • #70
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
But there is MONUMENTAL EVIDENCE that those Gods do not exist.

Logic, Statistics, and science all disprove such a God from existing.

OK, then present some of that evidence. I have studied logic, statistics, and science (physics), and I have not heard of any such proof.

I never understand why many atheists don't understand this, and can yet feel confident about atheism?

You are talking about atheism as if it were some kind of religion. It is not something about which one needs to feel confident. In fact, if it were not for religious people, there would be no such thing as "atheism" (why on Earth should I be defined in terms of what I don't believe?).

You seem to be an anti-theist ("I know there is no god, and I have evidence to prove it."), whereas I am a skeptical atheist ("I do not believe in god, because there is no evidence.")
 

Similar threads

[Philosophy of science] Bias inherent in the Scientific Method itself?
Replies
4
Views
1K
News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
Replies
12
Views
2K
Explore Banned Book Week & Its Impact on Free Speech
Replies
2
Views
1K
Are Skeptics Truly Open-Minded?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Should we be skeptical of inductive logic in the sciences?
Replies
7
Views
3K
Philosophy and Physics-physics needs philosophy?
Replies
2
Views
3K
News Is James Randi a skeptic or a Republican climate change denier?
2
Replies
59
Views
10K
Photo Contest-Just The Two Of Us (3/24-3/30)
Replies
8
Views
2K
I Are Geometric Points Affected By Forces?
Replies
3
Views
935
Fact checking - Scientific method
Replies
14
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top