How truly skeptical is our skepticism?

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Hi Chanakya

First off, I have a psychiatric disorder, which is acting up now. The effect is that I have a writers-block. So I haven't forgotten this thread, but I am unable to write that much.

So here is one example.
If the universe is physical, then my ability to answer "No!" to the claim that the universe is physical, is also physical. That is in part what you have to learn to be a general skeptic. It goes like this, you have to learn to avoid treating the universe as a thing itself and something which is around us. The universe is also in you and you are a part of the universe.
So for this exchange as it relates to empiricism, there are 2 aspects: Intra-cognition and external sensory input. Now if you only accept external sensory input, I can catch you, because you also rely on intra-cognition, i.e what goes on in your brain as your brain or inside your cognition.
So here it is unpacked:
The universe is physical means to some people that all knowledge can be expressed as an observational external sensory input evidence. I.e. "only observational external sensory input evidence is real" or some other variant to the same effect. But the trick is to recognize that that the sentence "only observational external sensory input evidence is real" is not observational external sensory input evidence. The sentence is a case of intra-cognition, so thus empiricism as 2 aspects: Intra-cogntion and external sensory input!
Naive empiricism as it connects to scientism is the idea that the universe can be explained only with external sensory.
So science comes in 2 forms: "Broad" and "narrow" empiricism.

More later
With regards

 

[kellyb]

A subjective examination of the content of your wordy opening post would lead one to make a hypothetical inference that you have neither received personal education nor learned in a centre of educational advancement to gain an appreciation of the fact that the character count or the word count of a prosaic article of text or a sub-article of text does not necessarily have a positive correlation with the intended impartation of the ideas that circulate from within your mind and the subset of said ideas that you intend that the reader of your article to absorb and gain a similar understanding of these ideas through an examination of the text that you constructed.

My 7th grade English teacher used to make us diagram sentences like the above. I still have nightmares.

FWIW, I didn't find the OP overly verbose, and very much did find him or her to be writing strictly for clarity.

 

[Chanakya]

As I said being a skeptic does not mean you are always right nor that your opinions or conclusions are sound.

I take your point.

And in my view that is the point you are getting caught up in and coming a cropper, an idealized situation is not a real situation that will ever happen nor will it ever exist so what does it matter if "skepticism" somehow breaks down in that situation?

Perhaps I hadn’t been able to convey this properly, but that isn’t what I was saying at all. That isn’t the “idealized situation” I was talking of. It isn’t a question of skepticism breaking down at all, but of how, ideally, a skeptic may best respond, given the situation(s) we were discussing.

That question has been answered to my full satisfaction. See my post #47 in response to kellyb’s earlier post.

The “answer” is simple : One can simply choose one’s battles, as it were, single out those portions of the superstructure that subjectively appear the most important to one, and to personally focus far greater time and effort than one normally ever would on those issues that have been singled out. Just a question of prioritizing, that’s all.

And this solution is “ideal”, because even prioritized, this solution (personal validation, first-hand or even second-hand) suggests a fairly extravagant use of resources (time, effort, perhaps funds as well), since the belief "superstructure" will often involve things that aren’t necessarily of immediate concern. While the practical application of this ideal may be a far more modest version of the ideal, perhaps even whittled down close to nothing at all given the pressures of daily living, nevertheless having that ideal in front of one can be a source of both inspiration and comfort. It can serve as reminder that that option remains open, should one be willing to put in that effort.

In other words, responding to what you said in your post : No, skepticism does not break down. But it does need effort. Perhaps more effort than one can really afford, but then nothing comes free, not even skepticism! The more skeptical you choose to be, the greater the effort you’re called on to put in.

I suppose this “answer” is trivial enough. Nothing remotely new. Yet this is exactly the answer I was looking for, myself.

 

[Chanakya]

You know, you really can't take on the victim role while dishing it out unless you don't mind really killing your credibility.

I suggest you read the entire thread in order to correctly understand the context for what I had said there. I expect you haven’t gone through the first page of this thread : if you had, I doubt you could have said what you did.

What I was protesting against is the wholly unprovoked and repeated discourtesy, as well as the repeated (and wholly unsupported) accusations and insinuations of Woo-peddling.

While unprovoked and egregious discourtesy I dislike, and the trope of the rude ill-behaved Internet troll something I abhor, nevertheless it may not always be inappropriate to reciprocate the unprovoked and repeated discourtesy of others with some small measure of snark.

As for playing the “victim role”, I find the concept wholly repugnant! Why in the world would I want to take on such an odious role?



Incidentally : I do understand where JoeMorgue was coming from. As he’s himself said here more than once, his own experience on these forums (and perhaps in real life as well) has been that the things I’d said in the OP (the “I am a skeptic myself, BUT …” gambit) is sometimes (often?) used as an innocuous-sounding prelude before some species of Woo is introduced. It is this Woo that he had encountered elsewhere, and that he was expecting would soon follow here, that he was reacting against.

While that is a classic strawman – something every self-respecting skeptic ought to guard against -- I don’t really blame him for his initial reaction. It is when he refused to budge from that initial presumption of his despite my repeatedly pointing out to him how wholly lacking in evidence and plain wrong his position was, and when he insisted on continuing to direct his discourteous and wholly unsupported allegations and insinuations at me, that I finally reacted with some small amount of snark. I don’t think that was at all inappropriate, given that context. And in any case, I expect (hope?) that I may, finally, have managed to show him how ill-founded his initial suspicions (and antagonism) were : I expect (hope?) we’ve been able to put that little unpleasantness behind us now, he and I.



But why keep talking about this second-hand? This is a lovely opportunity for a micro-demonstration of skepticism in action! Just read the first page of this thread, would you -- check out the actual evidence -- and then tell me whether you can now see the issue that you’d commented on, above, in a different light?

 

[Chanakya]

A subjective examination of the content of your wordy opening post would lead one to make a hypothetical inference that you have neither received personal education nor learned in a centre of educational advancement to gain an appreciation of the fact that the character count or the word count of a prosaic article of text or a sub-article of text does not necessarily have a positive correlation with the intended impartation of the ideas that circulate from within your mind and the subset of said ideas that you intend that the reader of your article to absorb and gain a similar understanding of these ideas through an examination of the text that you constructed.

Ouch!

(verbosity =/= clarity).

Absolutely! I take your point.

(...) We like to think that we are rational creatures, impartially testing everything that we learn and objectively deciding which things are true and which are false.

The reality is that we decide in advance what we are going to believe then we look for evidence that confirms this belief.

I suppose you’re referring here to the idea that we apparently have no free will? I have come across that idea, of course, but frankly have no idea myself what to make of it!

Whether free will is a thing at all, is probably a derail. Although a separate discussion, it’s a fascinating one certainly. (It might be worth checking if this has already been discussed here on these forums. It would have, I suppose.)

Assuming for now for the sake of argument that you are right in saying that “The reality is that we decide in advance what we are going to believe then we look for evidence that confirms this belief” -- if that is actually true, then how, would you say, does that bear on skepticism, and specifically on how a skeptic looks at and evaluates evidence? Would we do anything differently? Would it matter at all, in practice?

That’s a fascinating (and, to me, entirely unexpected) angle to the question I’d asked. Thanks for bringing this up!

 

[Chanakya]

... FWIW, I didn't find the OP overly verbose, and very much did find him or her to be writing strictly for clarity.

Thank you, kellyb!

 

[Chanakya]

Hi Chanakya

First off, I have a psychiatric disorder, which is acting up now. The effect is that I have a writers-block. So I haven't forgotten this thread, but I am unable to write that much.

So here is one example.
If the universe is physical, then my ability to answer "No!" to the claim that the universe is physical, is also physical. That is in part what you have to learn to be a general skeptic. It goes like this, you have to learn to avoid treating the universe as a thing itself and something which is around us. The universe is also in you and you are a part of the universe.
So for this exchange as it relates to empiricism, there are 2 aspects: Intra-cognition and external sensory input. Now if you only accept external sensory input, I can catch you, because you also rely on intra-cognition, i.e what goes on in your brain as your brain or inside your cognition.
So here it is unpacked:
The universe is physical means to some people that all knowledge can be expressed as an observational external sensory input evidence. I.e. "only observational external sensory input evidence is real" or some other variant to the same effect. But the trick is to recognize that that the sentence "only observational external sensory input evidence is real" is not observational external sensory input evidence. The sentence is a case of intra-cognition, so thus empiricism as 2 aspects: Intra-cogntion and external sensory input!
Naive empiricism as it connects to scientism is the idea that the universe can be explained only with external sensory.
So science comes in 2 forms: "Broad" and "narrow" empiricism.

More later
With regards

Tommy, I'm sorry you aren't well. Wish you a speedy recovery!

Thanks for taking the trouble to put down those thoughts despite your illness.

I did have some follow-on questions to better understand what you're saying, but it can wait. What we're discussing here isn't remotely urgent after all.

When you're better -- a week from now, two weeks, a month, whenever -- if you would PM me a heads-up, then we can resume this discussion, back on this thread, at that time.

Cheers!

 

[kellyb]

Assuming for now for the sake of argument that you are right in saying that “The reality is that we decide in advance what we are going to believe then we look for evidence that confirms this belief” -- if that is actually true, then how, would you say, does that bear on skepticism, and specifically on how a skeptic looks at and evaluates evidence? Would we do anything differently? Would it matter at all, in practice?

As a general rule, I try really hard to distinguish things I know for a fact, from things I deeply suspect, or merely lean towards in a gut sort of way.

Where skepticism comes in for me is in how I deal with contradictory evidence. I have to kind of force myself sometimes to go through the whole process of accepting that I was apparently wrong in at least some respect, and kind of take it from there, as opposed to just going into denial (which can cognitively take a lot of forms) about the contradictory evidence.

I experience cognitive dissonance as a sort of physical sensation almost, and really try to look at it like a friendly alarm going off, just letting me know I probably have some re-thinking to do, which usually does pan out to be a deeply rewarding process in the end.

 

[psionl0]

I suppose you’re referring here to the idea that we apparently have no free will?

I wasn't thinking of "free will" in the slightest. I don't know if it is real or an illusion (and I prefer not to make uninformed statements about it).

Assuming for now for the sake of argument that you are right in saying that “The reality is that we decide in advance what we are going to believe then we look for evidence that confirms this belief” -- if that is actually true, then how, would you say, does that bear on skepticism, and specifically on how a skeptic looks at and evaluates evidence? Would we do anything differently? Would it matter at all, in practice?

Some skeptics on this forum clearly show confirmation bias in everything that they post.

If we are aware that our conclusions about something may be unduly influenced by pre-existing beliefs then we can guard against it. The scientific method is supposed to lead to objective knowledge.

Unfortunately, we are not always aware of the extent to which a pre-existing belief colours our views or the way we do our research. So skepticism is probably less skeptical than we would have liked.

 

[The Norseman]

While unprovoked and egregious discourtesy I dislike, and the trope of the rude ill-behaved Internet troll something I abhor, nevertheless it may not always be inappropriate to reciprocate the unprovoked and repeated discourtesy of others with some small measure of snark.

So I was right. It seems in your absurd verbosity you try to hide the fact that you're complaining of being treated rudely while at the same time acting as rudely as you're complaining about. Being hypocritical on this undermines any other points you wish to communicate. It's on you.

As for playing the “victim role”, I find the concept wholly repugnant! Why in the world would I want to take on such an odious role?

Since you're the one doing it, Drama Queen fashion, only you can provide the answer you seek.

Incidentally :blah blah blah

 

[kellyb]

I get snarky back, too, eventually, when I feel unfairly attacked. Most people do.

 

[The Norseman]

I get snarky back, too, eventually, when I feel unfairly attacked. Most people do.

So? Do most people also complain about how they're being unfairly attacked while at the same time attacking back? Is that what most people do?

If so, then there's another good reason to ignore most people's poor reasoning skills.

 

[kellyb]

So? Do most people also complain about how they're being unfairly attacked while at the same time attacking back? Is that what most people do?

If so, then there's another good reason to ignore most people's poor reasoning skills.

Wait...so, you agree that it's fine to return snark/'tude, as long as you don't ever point out that the other person started it? lol

 

[JoeMorgue]

Incidentally : I do understand where JoeMorgue was coming from. As he’s himself said here more than once, his own experience on these forums (and perhaps in real life as well) has been that the things I’d said in the OP (the “I am a skeptic myself, BUT …” gambit) is sometimes (often?) used as an innocuous-sounding prelude before some species of Woo is introduced. It is this Woo that he had encountered elsewhere, and that he was expecting would soon follow here, that he was reacting against.

Not sometimes. Not often. Always. Literally always.

There's always Woo. Sometimes it's a specific Woo; chem-trails or religious beliefs or Bigfoot or the Illuminati or whatever. Other times it is a vague Woo; "Science is too arrogant" or "You need (insert euphemism for Woo) to have joy in your life" or "Science is a religion" or whatever.

Oh and the acknowledging the "I'm totally a skeptic but..." game is also part of the "I'm totally a skeptic but" game.

We've had countless "Are we skeptical enough" or "Are we skeptical of our skepticism" or "Is science a religion?" or "Is science dogmatic" threads. Countless. And they all go the same way.

Long story short. If you start a thread that question skepticism, you think skepticism is doing something wrong. Skepticism did something wrong or "too far" or "too much" or "in the wrong way" or some other variation.

That thing? That's the woo.

So out with it. What is the scenario in which we aren't "skeptical of our skepticism" enough?

 

[kellyb]

Not sometimes. Not often. Always. Literally always.

There's always Woo. Sometimes it's a specific Woo; chem-trails or religious beliefs or Bigfoot or the Illuminati or whatever. Other times it is a vague Woo; "Science is too arrogant" or "You need (insert euphemism for Woo) to have joy in your life" or "Science is a religion" or whatever.

Oh and the acknowledging the "I'm totally a skeptic but..." game is also part of the "I'm totally a skeptic but" game.

We've had countless "Are we skeptical enough" or "Are we skeptical of our skepticism" or "Is science a religion?" or "Is science dogmatic" threads. Countless. And they all go the same way.

Long story short. If you start a thread that question skepticism, you think skepticism is doing something wrong. Skepticism did something wrong or "too far" or "too much" or "in the wrong way" or some other variation.

That thing? That's the woo.

So out with it. What is the scenario in which we aren't "skeptical of our skepticism" enough?

I'm not seeing any of the Telltale Signs of Impending Woo that you are. An honest questioning of the limits on current knowledge and how that pertains to our skepticism on a personal level seems like a super-legit line of questioning to me.

So is the sub-topic of whether or not the philosophy behind the scientific method is the same sort of thing we use in "everyday skepticism" about things in our day to day lives, like "why is my dog acting like this?" or "will so and so really like this Christmas present?" or "why is my gut telling me there's something wrong with this situation I'm in", etc.

Can you quote the part of the OP that has you convinced we're on the cusp of having a book on antigravity hawked at us, or whatever?

 

[The Norseman]

Wait...so, you agree that it's fine to return snark/'tude, as long as you don't ever point out that the other person started it? lol

Oh, good lord. That's not what I said. He complained mightily of being insulted and how uncalled for it was and he didn't deserve any of it while at the same time insulting another poster. If you want to insult someone, just do it and understand that's what you're doing. It has nothing to do with who "started it." Which, in and of itself, is an immature response anyway.

It's just hypocritical to say that insults are bad unless you're the one saying them. It's a double-standard and one consequence is that the poster's arguments are negatively affected in the eyes of other posters. Apparently, you're fine with the hypocrisy to the point of defending it.

Why am I even having to explain this? Have the last word if you like, I'm done with explaining my point.

 

[Puppycow]

I self-describe as skeptic.

It is better to think of skepticism as a process, not an attribute. We are all fallible and gullible when we hear something that seems to confirm or reinforce our preexisting worldview. People who identify as skeptics are not immune to this.

Our overall (rational) worldview comprises so many elements that we take simply on trust.

Which is fine. Taking skepticism to an absurd extreme is frankly a ridiculous way to live. The trick is to learn who to trust and under what circumstances and about what matters, and what sorts of claims to be more skeptical about.

My point is, all of our skepticism notwithstanding, it seems to me that we are still, at the individual level, reduced to taking most of the elements of what we know simply on trust.

Yes, basically the same thing. The key is to find the correct balance. Extreme skepticism is a philosophical dead-end as well as a practical impossibility if you want to live a normal life. Some philosophers have argued that we cannot trust our own senses because our senses can be deceived, and therefore we must reject all knowledge that comes to us via our senses. Obviously such extreme skepticism is impractical.

Here's where it gets ridiculous in practice: it tends to lead to things like flat-earthism or rejection of scientific knowledge. I tend to call such people "pseudo-skeptics" because they apply skepticism (disbelief) to the wrong things. They tend to believe in conspiracies. One such who I argued with on the internets said he didn't believe anything unless he had personally verified it. Hey, I've never been to Rome myself, so I've never personally verified that it exists and the maps are correct about its location, but why would I doubt that? It makes no sense to doubt that.

So in practice it requires some common-sense judgment. You cannot personally verify every single fact that you need to construct a worldview. You just need to be able to distinguish between what categories of knowledge or claims deserve closer scrutiny before you accept them.

 

[David Mo]

It is better to think of skepticism as a process, not an attribute. We are all fallible and gullible when we hear something that seems to confirm or reinforce our preexisting worldview. People who identify as skeptics are not immune to this.



Which is fine. Taking skepticism to an absurd extreme is frankly a ridiculous way to live. The trick is to learn who to trust and under what circumstances and about what matters, and what sorts of claims to be more skeptical about.



Yes, basically the same thing. The key is to find the correct balance. Extreme skepticism is a philosophical dead-end as well as a practical impossibility if you want to live a normal life. Some philosophers have argued that we cannot trust our own senses because our senses can be deceived, and therefore we must reject all knowledge that comes to us via our senses. Obviously such extreme skepticism is impractical.

Here's where it gets ridiculous in practice: it tends to lead to things like flat-earthism or rejection of scientific knowledge. I tend to call such people "pseudo-skeptics" because they apply skepticism (disbelief) to the wrong things. They tend to believe in conspiracies. One such who I argued with on the internets said he didn't believe anything unless he had personally verified it. Hey, I've never been to Rome myself, so I've never personally verified that it exists and the maps are correct about its location, but why would I doubt that? It makes no sense to doubt that.

So in practice it requires some common-sense judgment. You cannot personally verify every single fact that you need to construct a worldview. You just need to be able to distinguish between what categories of knowledge or claims deserve closer scrutiny before you accept them.

I agree with your comment. If I can say this in another way:

There are two different kinds of scepticism:
(a) Metaphysical scepticism: there is not any truth. Everything can be considered equally true or false. Usually this scepticism is an open way to fideism and other irrationalisms because it is untenable in itself. Ockham.
(b) Methodical scepticism: you need an accurate exam of every question before to decide what is more plausible according reason and experience. Descartes or Hume.

Differences are obvious. (a) doesn't accept any belief and ends accepting all. (b) plays with certainties and palusible beliefs and discards the more irrational between them.

 

[Chanakya]

As a general rule, I try really hard to distinguish things I know for a fact, from things I deeply suspect, or merely lean towards in a gut sort of way.

Where skepticism comes in for me is in how I deal with contradictory evidence. I have to kind of force myself sometimes to go through the whole process of accepting that I was apparently wrong in at least some respect, and kind of take it from there, as opposed to just going into denial (which can cognitively take a lot of forms) about the contradictory evidence.

I experience cognitive dissonance as a sort of physical sensation almost, and really try to look at it like a friendly alarm going off, just letting me know I probably have some re-thinking to do, which usually does pan out to be a deeply rewarding process in the end.

Constant self-examination and self-awareness, in other words. Or as constant as one cares to make it. I suppose skepticism does need work, in more than one way, at least until it gets wholly internalized.

I enjoyed reading your views and others’ views and thinking through this, in the course of this thread. And it occurs to me -- not that this has anything to do with your post per se -- that just as atheism isn’t really a big deal, unless you happen to be a recovering theist or perhaps surrounded by overt/aggressive theism all around, similarly skepticism isn’t really a big deal! Just a simple way to look at the world and make as rational choices as practicable, and fully realizing that (and making your peace with the fact that) you may, despite all your skepticism, still end up being wrong about a good many things.

Which thought itself is probably no big deal! Wholly trivial, and obvious probably to most on here. Except it wasn’t obvious to me, personally, until I actually thought about this here, now.



Incidentally : I suppose you said what you did purely in general terms, right? That is, this has no bearing on our apparent lack of free will, does it?

 

[Chanakya]

I wasn't thinking of "free will" in the slightest. I don't know if it is real or an illusion (and I prefer not to make uninformed statements about it).

Oh, ok. You were only speaking in general terms, then.

Some skeptics on this forum clearly show confirmation bias in everything that they post.

I noticed that. At least, I don't know about "everything", but it is hard not to miss the confirmation bias in some posts of some posters.

If we are aware that our conclusions about something may be unduly influenced by pre-existing beliefs then we can guard against it. The scientific method is supposed to lead to objective knowledge.

Unfortunately, we are not always aware of the extent to which a pre-existing belief colours our views or the way we do our research.

In other words, skepticism needs work, conscious introspection and application (until it gets internalized). Both in formal structured science, and in everyday thinking. Sure, makes sense.

That reflects what kellyb had to say (or at least what I drew from it), in the post just preceding yours.

So skepticism is probably less skeptical than we would have liked.

I don’t think that applies to skepticism in general. Just that some individual skeptics are, apparently, less consciously skeptical and less self-aware than they might be. But perhaps that’s all you meant?