Debunking the debunkers

[Piggy]

Time for bed. I don't have the energy for a NASCAR thread tonight.

All I can say is, thank goodness neither science nor skepticism works the way you think they do, blutosky.

 

[blutoski]

And your basis for disagreement is totally without merit.

Why don't you engage my point?

What point?

If you accepted Randi's assertions because Randi is Randi, then you're not a skeptic.

If you accepted that Randi could be wrong, and you weighed his argument and considered it yourself, then you're not acting the way you say "science works".

Pretty simple.

Is this engaging: "I disagree, see above posts for details"?

 

[blutoski]

You said Randi is respected because he's an authority.

I'm pretty sure I didn't.

 

[Piggy]

I don't think so. You mean I'm ignoring that their work has stood the test of time, was innovative, &c?

It's not important to my claim, so I'm not roping it into the discussion. But sure: there's all sorts of things that brought to the position of being regarded as an authority.

This doesn't prove they're not authorities after all. It just explains it.

You're still dancing around your fatal "because".

"It just explains it"? Oh, is that all? Well silly me for believing that this matters.

This is not just important to your claim, it kills your claim outright.

You want to stop at "authority" and ask everyone to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Authority does not have the role you assign it in science. The work is what matters. Experiments and theories are judged by whether they hold water. Expertise and reputation come from the work, too.

Science is not authoritarian in the way that you claim.

Good night.

 

[Piggy]

I'm pretty sure I didn't.

See post 77:

Randi is respected because he's an authority on debunking.

 

[blutoski]

See post 77:

Oh, for Pete's sake. How about this then: Randi is respected as an authority on debunking.

 

[blutoski]

Time for bed. I don't have the energy for a NASCAR thread tonight.

All I can say is, thank goodness neither science nor skepticism works the way you think they do, blutosky.

I have paycheques that say otherwise. At least as far as the science claim goes.

In principle, skepticism is trying to promote science, so: as with science also with skepticism, I assume.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Wouldn't it depend? I mean: there's that great scene in Annie Hall where they're debating the intention of a play, and Woody Allen's character is able to back up his claim by producing the playwright in person...

Marshall Mc Luhan is a playwright? What play did he write? "The Medium is the Massage"?

 

[blutoski]

Wouldn't it depend? I mean: there's that great scene in Annie Hall where they're debating the intention of a play, and Woody Allen's character is able to back up his claim by producing the playwright in person...

Marshall Mc Luhan is a playwright? What play did he write? "The Medium is the Massage"?

Hey, gimmie a break: It's been 30 years! Go with it.

 

[Piggy]

Oh, for Pete's sake. How about this then: Randi is respected as an authority on debunking.

No no no. No "for Pete's sake". In most other situations, it wouldn't matter, but in this context it did.

You have repeatedly asserted (incorrectly) that science and skepticism rely on appeals to authority. In doing so, you ignore the fact that only a consistently credible body of work (i.e., getting results that others can verify) leads others to judge that a scientist or skeptic is an expert.

If a scientist does not submit papers for peer review, if a skeptic withholds data, then other scientists and skeptics are not going to believe their claims, no matter who they are.

It's the method, the openness, the process that is science and which is skepticism. Appeals to authority are not needed.

The reason we cite experts so often is that the experts have the most data. They have the largest body of verified results to refer to, and they're easier to find. It would be odd, therefore, if we didn't cite Randi's work or Hawking's work when discussing debunking and contemporary physics, respectively.

But if anyone cites these experts and merely references a conclusion without explaining its validity and relevance, this is a logical error.

Suppose I cited Hawking and Hertog's new paper on quantum cosmology and claimed it proved string theory? Given that their predictions haven't yet been verified, I would be committing an error, even though Hawking and Hertog are experts, and are qualified to opine on the matter at hand.

The error would not be theirs, it would be mine, because I would be making a naked appeal to authority, rather than citing the work of an authority.

 

[Piggy]

I have paycheques that say otherwise. At least as far as the science claim goes.

Again, your paychecks are only relevant in your authoritarian worldview.

In principle, skepticism is trying to promote science, so: as with science also with skepticism, I assume.

Skepticism promotes science because science follows skeptical rules -- it's based on sober review of evidence. This does not, however, imply that "as with science also with skepticism" for all things.

And didn't your daddy ever tell you what happens when you assume?

 

[Z]

Benny Hill taught me about 'assume...'

 

[blutoski]

Again, your paychecks are only relevant in your authoritarian worldview.

Or... they could be 'the data'? I thought a skeptic reviewed all data?

I am paid by a scientific establishment (the faculty of science at my university). They seem to think I know what I'm doing. Why is this not relevant?

Skepticism promotes science because science follows skeptical rules -- it's based on sober review of evidence. This does not, however, imply that "as with science also with skepticism" for all things.

And didn't your daddy ever tell you what happens when you assume?

I was couching my words in order to indicate that this was my opinion, rather than 'absolute fact'. I try to avoid hubris.

This is consistent with the scientific approach to authorities and experts: nobody can seriously expect to understand everthing within their own field, much less others. No scientist has a competent understanding outside his field, pretty much by definition. I sure don't. When I start to believe I can pick up papers in another field and understand them as well as - or better than - the current experts, then I am fooling myself.

 

[blutoski]

No no no. No "for Pete's sake". In most other situations, it wouldn't matter, but in this context it did.

You have repeatedly asserted (incorrectly) that science and skepticism rely on appeals to authority. In doing so, you ignore the fact that only a consistently credible body of work (i.e., getting results that others can verify) leads others to judge that a scientist or skeptic is an expert.['quote]

No, I think this is true, and have said so *twice* in this thread. I'm not ignoring it- I don't see the point. This doesn't mean there aren't any experts - you just said there were. This doesn't mean they aren't considered the primary point of contact outside their peers, or even within it. This is my claim. I don't think discussing how they became authorities contradicts the statement that they're considered authorities. As a consequence, I haven't gone into it much, because I don't see the point.

If a scientist does not submit papers for peer review, if a skeptic withholds data, then other scientists and skeptics are not going to believe their claims, no matter who they are.

It's the method, the openness, the process that is science and which is skepticism. Appeals to authority are not needed.

Sure they are. Don't you go to a doctor when you're sick? Should people just 'read up' on 'medicine stuff' to figure out what ails them? Or do they go to an expert?

Continuing with this example, the defense of a doctor "I thought this treatment was better so I ignored the guidelines of the APA" is not "Hooray for thinking for himself" - It's "Malpractice."

When parents do it, it's "Neglect."

When skeptics encourage this behavior, they are joining the ranks of antiscience, not supporting science.

The reason we cite experts so often is that the experts have the most data. They have the largest body of verified results to refer to, and they're easier to find. It would be odd, therefore, if we didn't cite Randi's work or Hawking's work when discussing debunking and contemporary physics, respectively.

But if anyone cites these experts and merely references a conclusion without explaining its validity and relevance, this is a logical error.

No it isn't. I've provided citations that refute this. There are legitemate applications of appeal to authority. When there's a recognized field with general agreement &c. Or are you saying you don't believe this?

Suppose I cited Hawking and Hertog's new paper on quantum cosmology and claimed it proved string theory? Given that their predictions haven't yet been verified, I would be committing an error, even though Hawking and Hertog are experts, and are qualified to opine on the matter at hand.

The error would not be theirs, it would be mine, because I would be making a naked appeal to authority, rather than citing the work of an authority.

I don't understand the example. Are you saying that Hawking claims he's proved string theory, and if you report it, you're be making an error?

Or are you saying that if you've misrepresented the paper, that you've made a logical error?

If the latter, then no, this is not germaine. I can misread an instrument and report the wrong result. This doesn't make 'reading an instrument' a logical error.

To continue with this example, you could very well read into the paper with the best intentions of understanding it, misunderstand it because of a lack of education, and still misrepresent its findings. That is: an error followed after analyzing the data. This doesn't mean 'analyzing data' is a logical error.

 

[blutoski]

Duplicate - database glitch?

 

[blutoski]

So you realized he was wrong because he erroneously thought mass and weight were the same property. What he wrote - his "data" - was wrong. Not because he is not an authority in physics.

Haven't you just proved it is the data, not the authority, that counts?

No, quite the opposite. I'm not a physicist. I learned about physics from a teacher, from textbooks. I treat these as authorities in a way.

Now: I suspect Randi's wrong because his opinion differs from that of the authorities I recognize.

I have not personally conducted these experiments. I have not read peer-reviewed publications on the subject. Most of us haven't. Yet we all have this baseline of physics 'knowledge' we picked up in highschool or university, which we use as a guideline for noticing errors.

Science works like this, too. My wife does not review every paper on every medication she prescribes. There are people who do that for a living. At the end of their review, they publish a summary guideline. This group is an authority on the subject, and my wife is best served by adhering to their guidelines. She is not 'a bad scientist' for recognizing her limitations. There is no way she can duplicate the work of twenty people for two years while at the same time maintaining her regular workload. The recognition and appointment of authorities on these treatment guidelines (as one example) is an example of what I'm describing.

 

[blutoski]

That must go down as one of the more stupid statements ever made on this board. At no point is anybody actually reading the original experiments? How did they know what happened then? Psychic powers?

Of course somebody read, reviewed and replicated the original experimants. Agreed, not the people who wrote a school textbook. So what?

Well, that *was* my point: the publication of textbooks does not involve hands-on validation of the claims. The publishers rely on authorities.

"So what" is that the counterargument is that we should *ignore* arguments from authority and people should not accept statements without personally getting involved in verifying them. I wanted to point out that most of what you and I actually know was accepted in this format.

This would mean (apparently) that most scientists are 'unscientifc' in that they mostly learned in an authoritarian setting of a classroom and textbooks. I disagree. I am arguing that this is evidence that science does indeed work like this, and that it's not a bad thing, and should not be undermined.

My concern is that while ideally science would be a bunch of hardcore skeptics who test every claim so that they only accept the ones that they can personally confirm, in fact, it is an institution that has too much specialized knowledge for this to be practical. In order to function, science must define fields of expertise and outsiders are not authorities on these subjects. It follows that insiders are authorities on these subjects, and they are sought after for their opinions.

I'm having difficulty undestanding why this is objectionable.

 

[blutoski]

What in the world are you babbling about?

There is no "skepticism movement" that "was founded".

You suggest here that atheists should pipe down and restrict their comments on God and religion to other forums. To hell with that.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. My view, however, is that the claim that "skeptics are all atheists" is untrue. It follows that going out into the world and telling outsiders this is distributing a falsehood and should be stopped.

I have no problem with "In my opinion, all skeptics should be atheists." I agree. But I have mentioned before that I have never met a complete skeptic, so I'm willing to let some people be 'imperfect' in my presence.

I am one of those skeptics who assert -- and can argue rationally for -- the notion that rigidly applied skepticism leads inevitably to the atheistic position.

If debates over this issue break up organizations, then that's how the cookie crumbles. I'm not going to shut up.

No, it's not about that. It's that the Villiage Atheists are usually not very philosophical at all. They use arguments like: "Believers are stupid" and, in my case, (wife is a doctor), "Believers are so borderline retarded that nobody should trust them to perform difficult work." and, my favourite: "You should divorce her, since religious people are all liars and cheats, and I'm lobbying the government right now incidentally, to try to get a law instated in BC that doctors should lose their licences if they're exposed as religious."

I'm an atheist myself, but these guys are total asshats and make me ashamed of my philosophical stance. Their strategy is to intentionally offend everybody who doesn't agree with them so that membership gets skewed. Eventually when a meeting comes around to elect directors, they constitute quorum and "make changes." Then 90% of the membership leaves, the organization implodes, they move on to another group, and we have to pick up the pieces. They're like locusts.

Radical atheism is a fundamentalist religion just like any other, leaving nothing but misery and suffering in its wake. One of the things they cause as an unintended side effect is more laws hostile to atheists. But that's another discussion.

 

[blutoski]

Please show me who you are talking about, who are these people who believe science has an answer for everything and can solve all problems?

Even on my "Killing Sagan's Dragon" thread, where many posters argued that I could not deny the dragon because going beyond science was irrational, I don't recall anyone making the sort of argument you describe.

I see it so often that the examples don't even register anymore. However, here's one recent one in a current thread:
Normal Science is a Puzzle

You so silly, there is science and there is not science, there is no domain to which science should not be applied. There is no 'normal' science, there is merely science, sociology is an area of science that might even address the areas you feel should be off limit. Or possibly cultural anthropology.

Why would "social and political problems " be any different?

I think that science applies to all things why would there be an exclusion?

This is 'scientism,' and is linked to the logical fallacy called the 'naturalistic fallacy' - the error of believing that understanding of nature will lead to solving human problems, such as qeustions about values, morals, &c.

 

[Piggy]

No no no. No "for Pete's sake". In most other situations, it wouldn't matter, but in this context it did.

You have repeatedly asserted (incorrectly) that science and skepticism rely on appeals to authority. In doing so, you ignore the fact that only a consistently credible body of work (i.e., getting results that others can verify) leads others to judge that a scientist or skeptic is an expert.

No, I think this is true, and have said so *twice* in this thread. I'm not ignoring it- I don't see the point. This doesn't mean there aren't any experts - you just said there were. This doesn't mean they aren't considered the primary point of contact outside their peers, or even within it. This is my claim. I don't think discussing how they became authorities contradicts the statement that they're considered authorities. As a consequence, I haven't gone into it much, because I don't see the point.

Then there's really nothing more I can say.

Based on this last round of posts, your thinking has undergone so much lateral drift that it's become lost in the woods.

I have never argued that there aren't any experts, but you have gone way beyond simply observing that there are experts.

If you don't understand why it's relevant that [1] in science, "authorities" are not cited because they're authorities (your appeal to authority argument) but rather because they're the ones who are likely to have the data that needs citing, and [2] their recognition as experts also arises from the fact that they have developed this body of data that deserves citing, and [3] citing the expert with a naked appeal to authority, rather than citing the data/theory/conclusions within the expert's body of work, is in fact an error -- then you are not thinking about this matter with any degree of clarity.