The Mentality of Skeptics

[Dancing David]

I am anxious about some things - the repercussions of the bombing of targets in Syria / Iraq for example. But being anxious about the possibility of a creature for which there is no evidence - please - we only have a limited time on this planet. I'll spend my time being anxious in better ways.

My thinking exactly, I am disappointed by the gun violence three and a half blocks from my house and scared by the idiots who drive like maniacs. The state of Illinois under Governor Voldemort does cause me anxiety, as it may lead to a job change for me.

 

[jakesteele]

Perhaps I am too deep in the mindset to see where we are lacking. Can you give some examples of Official Stories that are more deserving of doubt and uncertainty than they are given on this board?

I am searching for this link on the Gen. Skept/CT forums, but I'm not having any luck. Perhaps you could help me find it.

What I'm talking about there is a poll that was taken 2-3 months ago that was about, "Should the Official Story be questioned?" It's something to that effect. I knew before I looked at the results that the majority of the votes would be in favor of 'no reason' to question the OS, something to that effect. But I was shocked that it was 90%, give or take, to see no reason to question the OS. That's what I'm referring to.

 

[Resume]

The state of Illinois under Governor Voldemort does cause me anxiety, as it may lead to a job change for me.

He promised change. He just didn't say it was for the worse.

 

[jakesteele]

Does this mean a sceptic should remain undecided about every claim? Including that the earth is flat, for example?

A sceptic looks at all the evidence for a claim and critically analyse and weighs it. If there is not enough to make an assessment of the truth of that claim they suspend judgement; if there is enough they make one, albeit a provisional one in that any new evidence will require a reconsideration.

There is more than enough evidence (including absence of expected evidence) to rationally conclude that the earth is not flat, that homeopathy doesn't work, that astrology is nonsense, and that there is no such animal as Bigfoot. Those are therefore my positions on those particular claims until and unless someone produces new objective evidence which would require me to reconsider them.

Why you would imagine anything in this process makes me feel anxious I have no idea. I would be genuinely excited if claims for supernatural or paranormal phenomena could be borne out, and mildly interested if a large animal previously unknown to science was discovered in America (or indeed anywhere else).

That's not what the bolded sentence means at all. It means that that should be the mindset of a rational skeptic before going into something and remaining that way unless and until something pans out or doesn't pan out and then making the best of what he's found or not found. Very similar to what you lay out.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

That's not what the bolded sentence means at all. It means that that should be the mindset of a rational skeptic before going into something and remaining that way unless and until something pans out or doesn't pan out and then making the best of what he's found or not found. Very similar to what you lay out.

While you're agreeing with OS on some rather trivial non-truths about the nature of scepticism, it's funny that his entire premise for this thread is spawned out of his rather ridiculous belief of hybrid-alien-Sasquatches. Yes, I'll let that sink in for a moment...

But by all means, continue to act like nobody has ever given him the benefit of the doubt with regards to actually getting off his arse and trying to prove something.

Lest we forget, admittedly, OS hasn't had a single encounter in his entire life. Again, funny that.

Sceptics: apparently wrong for calling a spade a spade. Maybe the next time some bloke who smells of nail-polish tries to sell me a bridge, I'll be a little bit less critical and a little more forthcoming.

 

[ferd burfle]

Poster history is a factor here. Shame on any veteran member who doesn't give a new poster on a topic, especially if that person is new to the forum, the benefit of the doubt even on a tired topic. But if a poster has made increasingly fantastic claims for which they've failed to provide evidence then a preemptive strike on a fresh claim on the same topic is to some degree justified. Especially so if that poster has a history of being, shall we say, economical with the truth.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What I'm talking about there is a poll that was taken 2-3 months ago that was about, "Should the Official Story be questioned?" It's something to that effect.

That would be the one in the 9/11 forum, right? The one that gave options "Yes," "No" and "Undecided," which as we all know would be interpreted by conspiracy theorists as "I agree with all the conspiracy theories," "I'm too closed minded to question anything" and "I have no idea what's going on here"?

The reason that poll was garbage is that we all know the tricks 9/11 truthers get up to in order to distort and misrepresent any piece of evidence they don't like the look of, which is a rather more serious concern than the OP's imaginary third-party neuroses.

Dave

 

[Darwin123]

One of the things that's always fascinated me about people who call themselves "skeptics" is their reaction to the unknown. During my time here I've noticed that ambiguity can make these people very uneasy.

You switched between the concept of 'unknown' with the concept of 'ambiguous'. You not only think that the two concepts are the same. You apparently think everyone else here equates them.

The 'unknown' is not the same as 'the ambiguous'. Suppose someone feels transient perception of cold in a dark room. A person who is sure that a phenomenon was caused by ghosts doesn't think that the reason is unknown. He rejects other explanations because he 'knows' what caused it. He is afraid of the ambiguity of an unknown cause. A person who presents many alternative reasons for the phenomenon isn' afraid of ambiguity. However, he may be afraid of saying the cause is unknown.

Not all ambiguous phenomena are unknown. Ambiguous can mean subjective. For instance, subjective phenomena are ambiguous in the sense that different observers. In relativity, two observers in different reference frames can observe different time intervals between the same two events. That is one of the hypotheses in relativity. Thus, the time interval is subjective, not unknown. Similarly, not all physical phenomena are mutually exclusive. There can be two 'right' answers that don't contradict each other. When studying the history of a particular war, one usually finds different motivations for the war. Since there were many people involved, there can be many motivations.

I have no problem with subjective phenomena. I have no problem with someone who says that the cause for something is unknown. I have a problem with people who say, 'There is no ambiguity because the phenomenon was obviously caused by a ghost.'

In direct contrast to "skeptics", proponents of woo are usually highly tolerant of ambiguity. In fact, many of them actually seem to enjoy it as it makes the world a more interesting place for them. For many of them, not knowing for sure if their beliefs are correct or not is actually large part of their fun. This makes for some really interesting dynamics the two.[/url]

My experience is quite the opposite. woo peddlers insist on one interpretation of the universe based on their instincts and perception. They do not tolerate anything abstract. They don't like their motivations questioned.

They will repeat the same thing over and over even in the face of overwhelming evidence. They will assault the dictionary when shown they misquoted either an expert or a 'witness'. They make up phrases and words on the spot to make it clear there is no other explanation.

I think there are many examples of woo peddlers on this forum. I don't have to list them!

 

[William Parcher]

The reason that poll was garbage is that we all know the tricks 9/11 truthers get up to in order to distort and misrepresent any piece of evidence they don't like the look of, which is a rather more serious concern than the OP's imaginary third-party neuroses.

Do not for a moment think that OS isn't all of that as well. It is just as serious as any 9/11 woo.

Tricks to distort and misrepresent. They are there with OS.
Conspiracy theories. They are there with OS.

 

[Ladewig]

I am searching for this link on the Gen. Skept/CT forums, but I'm not having any luck. Perhaps you could help me find it.

What I'm talking about there is a poll that was taken 2-3 months ago that was about, "Should the Official Story be questioned?" It's something to that effect. I knew before I looked at the results that the majority of the votes would be in favor of 'no reason' to question the OS, something to that effect. But I was shocked that it was 90%, give or take, to see no reason to question the OS. That's what I'm referring to.

Because my Google-Fu and logical reasoning are not what they used to be. I spent a half hour searching before I found the poll in the 9/11 subforum. Dave Rogers has already referenced it

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=287046

Do you really think that the official 9/11 story needs to be questioned in 2015?
Haven't the thousands of threads and tens of thousands of posts in the 9/11 subforum gone over every single aspect of the conspiracy?

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is weird because being able to tolerate cognitive dissonance is essential for proper skepticism.

Why do you believe this to be true?

 

[Mark6]

Personally, I would be ecstatic to find a previously undiscovered large hominid in North America. I would even be pretty happy if someone else found one. I am somewhat saddened by the fact that nobody has. I am not the least bit bothered by the fact that thousands claim to have seen one, but so far have not produced so much as a piece of fur or scat.

There was time people were skeptical about existence of duckbill platypus. Guess what -- someone caught one alive and presented it. Because duckbill platypus exists. If Bigfoot existed, someone would have caught one by now.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

@OP: I'd say the contrary is true. Uncertainty is the hallmark of the provisional truths one can derive from science, always in a state of flux, but perfectly serviceable. The only panic a skeptic might feel on being exposed to woo is that it is only the beginning of a dinner engagement and walking out is not yet an option. Ambiguity in that case is associated with the difficult choice of drinking a lot more to survive the evening when the woo waxes full, or taking the quick roof exit. Hard to choose.

 

[GT/CS]

What OS doesn't seem to understand is that we're just tired of his nonsense so we no longer treat him with courtesy. He warps that behavior into some weird theory about skeptics being secret believers, and not being able to handle the truth.
I'm not quite sure how he made that bizarre leap, or if he even believes it. I think it's more likely a childish playground tactic.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

The main points:

Some skeptics don't like ambiguity because ambiguity gives them anxiety. These type of skeptics are debunkers at heart because debunking things gets rid of their uncertainty. A lot of times they'll do a good job at debunking something, but sometimes when the answer isn't clear, they'll still try to debunk the evidence in whatever way they can and end up being wrong.

Skepticism on its own has nothing to do with taking a stance on something; it's about doubting and questioning. By forming a conclusion on something, you're basically letting go of skepticism. That isn't necessarily wrong, but if you're doing it wrong and you're doing it for the purpose of getting rid of uncertainty, then you're just a skeptic by name or a denialist.

It's hard to tell the difference between a skeptic and denialist because they blend in so well, but it's possible if you pay attention to their behaviour. Here's a chart that lists the differences between a skeptic and a denialist

You might notice that proponents of woo often fit into the denialist category as well. I think that goes to show just how unskeptical some of these skeptics are.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

He warps that behavior into some weird theory about skeptics being secret believers, and not being able to handle the truth.

I've never said that skeptics are secretly believers. It's not the truth that some of them can't handle; it's the uncertainty.

 

[Resume]

The main points:
Some skeptics don't like ambiguity because ambiguity gives them anxiety. These type of skeptics are debunkers at heart because debunking things gets rid of their uncertainty. A lot of times they'll do a good job at debunking something, but sometimes when the answer isn't clear, they'll still try to debunk the evidence in whatever way they can and end up being wrong.

Please provide examples with appropriate links.

ETA: Examples of the your highlighted diagnosis.

Skepticism on its own has nothing to do with taking a stance on something;

Of course skepticism can take a stance on something. Pigeon drops are one example.

it's about doubting and questioning.

Among other things

By forming a conclusion on something, you're basically letting go of skepticism. That isn't necessarily wrong, but if you're doing it wrong and you're doing it for the purpose of getting rid of uncertainty, then you're just a skeptic by name or a denialist.

No, you're coming to a conclusion based on the best evidence. There is no uncertainty about mermaids or an extant Elvis.

It's hard to tell the difference between a skeptic and denialist because they blend in so well, but it's possible if you pay attention to their behaviour. Here's a chart that lists the differences between a skeptic and a denialist.

How long did it take you to bale all that crap up?

You might notice that proponents of woo often fit into the denialist category as well. I think that goes to show just how unskeptical some of these skeptics are.

Examples with proper citations please.

ETA: Examples of the highlighted please.

 

[Resume]

I've never said that skeptics are secretly believers. It's not the truth that some of them can't handle; it's the uncertainty.

You sure about that?

 

[Sideroxylon]

I've never said that skeptics are secretly believers. It's not the truth that some of them can't handle; it's the uncertainty.

While it's my observation that woo uncertainty is often contrived by ignoring facts and prosaic explanations. The scientific method is expressed as providing only provisional knowledge and the skeptical approach here is best labeled scientific skepticism. The "What's the evidence" mantra seen on this board is rooted in this idea.

 

[Dave Rogers]

By forming a conclusion on something, you're basically letting go of skepticism.

What utter, utter bollocks. Forming a provisional conclusion is as much part of the sceptical process as re-evaluating that conclusion as and when new evidence becomes available.

Dave