That is a difference of degree not type or class.
Which has nothing to do with whether it is in principle possible to examine a "political question" with the "tools of scepticism".
Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?
- Status
That is a difference of degree not type or class.
Which has nothing to do with whether it is in principle possible to examine a "political question" with the "tools of scepticism".
Nope. There are two different types here, one where it's the psychic itself and nothing else. With economy, there are other influences than local politics.
How can you examine communism with the tools of skepticism?
Not a convinced by your argument - perhaps you can expand on it?
The same way you would examine a paint with the tools of scepticism to see if it was red. First of all you define what your goal actually is and then apply your scepticism.
Last edited:
In the case of the psychic, we have the psychic claiming to be able to talk to the dead. There are no other influences - it doesn't matter if the wind blows, or there's a full moon. It's just the spirit and the psychic. We can examine psychics skeptically to see if there are natural explanations, or if there really is spirit contact.
In the case of a political initiative to "improve" the economy, you would have to exclude all the influences to know if what you yourself is doing is working.
E.g., when you lower the interest rate, what effects does that have on the economy? Let's say that the real estate market goes up afterwards. Can we examine skeptically if it was solely due to you lowering the interest rate? No, because the real estate market is dependent on other things outside your political initiative. E.g, oil prices, wars, stock crashes, what politicians in other countries do that affects your economy.
Let's go with the same question: Does communism improve the economy?
To be pedantic it would be better if you stated it as "We have the psychic claiming to be able to communicate to the dead".
That depends on the claim of the psychic - I'm sure you've heard or read about, for example, psychics who claim they can't work with people who don't believe or have "negative energy".
So as you can see your statement about psychics doesn't in fact stand in a "vacuum" - for it to be a question that you can "use" scepticism on you need to supply additional information - just like your question regarding politics. Scepticism can only "work" on questions that are meaningful.
That questions may require more effort or be harder to answer with the tools of scepticism does not mean the questions are of a different type. Again I ask you for an argument that supports your claim that the questions are of a different type rather than of different complexity.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
We agree to disagree on a lot of issues here:
Is America merely a great nation historically or the greatest nation historically?
Does football mean boring 90 minute matches or exciting 60 minute scrums?
Ketchup, mayonaise or gravy and cheese on french fries?
Is playing the Lotto madness, gambling or better than paying taxes?
If you speak English, and often, even if you don't, Monty Python and the Simpsons are hilarious?
... o.k., perhaps we could all agree on that last one.
Getting back to the political question Claus saliently raises and how skeptically we "all" approach well, everything; Shermer, Penn, Shanek and a number of others have suggested that Libertarianism is the logical political position for skeptics to take. Are not their claims rigorously questioned on this forum? Is not the general idea of Libertarianism rigorously questioned on this forum?
And yet we don't deny that Shermer, Penn, Shanek, etc. are skeptics now do we? Since politics is not a primary focus of JREF, it's o.k. to give people some slack on political beliefs that aren't the same as the majority if they are otherwise committed to the process of skepticism, isn't it? We have some free market conservatives on this forum that make me crazy. We have libertine anarchists on the forum that make me crazy.
I'd never say they weren't skeptics because I disagreed with them politically, even if I found some of their political beliefs wooish... why is religious belief the third rail that will electrify even the most rational skeptic who happens to be religious?
Dglas is so off base with his "unclean" and "singled out" remarks in his comments to my JREF thread it's not even funny. Atheists aren't being singled out, only religious people who happen to dare speak the taboo about their belief are.
Is America merely a great nation historically or the greatest nation historically?
Does football mean boring 90 minute matches or exciting 60 minute scrums?
Ketchup, mayonaise or gravy and cheese on french fries?
Is playing the Lotto madness, gambling or better than paying taxes?
If you speak English, and often, even if you don't, Monty Python and the Simpsons are hilarious?
... o.k., perhaps we could all agree on that last one.
Getting back to the political question Claus saliently raises and how skeptically we "all" approach well, everything; Shermer, Penn, Shanek and a number of others have suggested that Libertarianism is the logical political position for skeptics to take. Are not their claims rigorously questioned on this forum? Is not the general idea of Libertarianism rigorously questioned on this forum?
And yet we don't deny that Shermer, Penn, Shanek, etc. are skeptics now do we? Since politics is not a primary focus of JREF, it's o.k. to give people some slack on political beliefs that aren't the same as the majority if they are otherwise committed to the process of skepticism, isn't it? We have some free market conservatives on this forum that make me crazy. We have libertine anarchists on the forum that make me crazy.
I'd never say they weren't skeptics because I disagreed with them politically, even if I found some of their political beliefs wooish... why is religious belief the third rail that will electrify even the most rational skeptic who happens to be religious?
Dglas is so off base with his "unclean" and "singled out" remarks in his comments to my JREF thread it's not even funny. Atheists aren't being singled out, only religious people who happen to dare speak the taboo about their belief are.
The "Politics" Forum contains plenty of examples of people being told they are not sceptics because they believe in "X" and so on. Perhaps you are just sensitised to only noticing such comments when related to a person's religious beliefs?
Wolverine
Centered and One
I'd note that the woo-ish political positions you describe generally don't include acceptance of a supernatural claim. (Well, unless you're Pat Robertson or something.)
True. We can all talk to the dead. The question is, do they talk back?
Of course. That's what good protocols are for.
No, it stands in a vacuum. That's why we can test it. If we had all sorts of unknowables, we would not be able to test it.
That psychics afterwards make up all kinds of excuses does nothing to their original claim.
They are two different types.
What would be a different type to you?
Not the latter. Read about the Roman empire. It dwarfs the US.
No disagreement there. Boring 90 minute matches.
Cuisinal heretic.
Lotto is gambling by definition.
Yes, of course.
I dunno about the last one. Shanek's anti-vac stance in the Yurko thread was quite disturbing. That was a clear example of how one's political stance (anti-government) came in the way of skepticism.
....libertine anarchists?
Only by those who insist that we should call those who make non-verifiable claims non-skeptics. And they are very wrong about that.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
Meh, I cannot argue with such a good rubattal. I'm not going to change my 29/30 rule though for giving self-proclaimed skeptics the benefit of the doubt though... since I give it to my previously cited Shermer, Penn and Shanek.
Why should that make a difference? If a Libertarian thinks the FDA should be done away with since it prevents "effecatious" Alt-Med from making it to market, should we ostracize them here because of that belief? I say let individuals hang themselves by thier own woo rather than beat them down over something that really is beyond the scientific method at first admission.
Wolverine
Centered and One
I never suggested ostracizing anyone. My only point was that even a contentious political belief/ideology does not directly compare to one which posits a claim of the supernatural. The two positions do not share equal footing -- though neither should be provided an arbitrary mulligan.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
He's also an atheist... Per his Beyond Belief 2.0
http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/watch/
I think that most people who consider themselves skeptics are people who embrace a "naturalistic" world view. In a Venn diagram, skepticism is a big circle with a lot of overlap with naturalism another big circle. Atheism is a much smaller circle pertaining to a single issue that overlaps a great deal with the two bigger circles... but, clearly, not completely. Most skeptics think that non-naturalistic world views that are held by those who call themselves skeptics, are held by shielding those particular tools from the tools of skepticism--mainly Occam's razor-- to posit the existence of an invisible immeasurable form of consciousness is to multiply entities unnecessarily. Though it's hard to imagine an entity that is indistinguishable from the absence of said entity... or an entity that is indistinguishable from a delusion of said entity-- as has been mentioned before. Apparently, people have these beliefs because it gives them comfort or they've been indoctrinated early and cannot imagine a world making sense without such entities.
Why is it so incomprehensible for you to understand that people can think of something, without it necessarily exists?
I've said it before, but it bears repeating: What you are suggesting is that when people think of something, it springs into existence - as in it being measurable.
That's what Shirley Maclaine also claims, and what "The Secret" is all about.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
I agree. People who argue that religion should be off limits for skeptical inquiry seem to confuse statements of opinions or feelings with statement of fact. To believe in the supernatural or to claim that something exists which is immeasurable in any way is different than having an opinion or feeling or assessing the probability of something. Theists tend to make claims of fact about things that are not factual. "God exists" is a statement that is either true or not and running around and changing the definition or making the definition nebulous doesn't change the fact. It is not a statement worth considering unless there is a clear definition or evidence brought to the table, and so most skeptics, rightfully discard such statements in regards to explanations. Statements such as "believing in god makes me feel good" reflect facts about feelings... but not about any god. Political statements tend to be opinions, propaganda, mottos, ideas, feelings, and everything except objective facts. Feelings and faith are not ways to know objective facts--the truth that is the same for everybody.
Although you can apply skepticism to statements that are not facts; they are the most useful when used to understand the truth--the one that is the same for everyone. To pretend that statements regarding the existence of the supernatural are on par with political opinions, or emotions is to give the supernatural a special place free from inquiry... and it's most often used to protect "god" type supernatural beliefs. To me, religious claims sound as woo-ish as other woo claims and I treat them as such on a skeptics forum.
Whoa, there. Supernatural claims are about what is measurable.
You keep lumping non-verifiable claims together with non-verifiable ones, and think they can be examined skeptically the same way. They cannot not.
What you are arguing is not skepticism but scientism.
So that's how you spell that? I learned something today.
Well, there are several possibilities. Could it be he enjoys being a high-profile (albeit within a limited group) figure? Could it be he wants to sell books? Could it be he wants a footnote in history books? Could it be he wishes to use the foundation he attempts to establish to prop up his political leanings - as if Libertarianism was backed by skepticism.
I do not know Shermer. We have never met. I have read some of his stuff. What I read was, it seems to me, agenda-driven.
Yes, but I'll just point at one person - you.
THE question? You still somehow imagine you can control a conversation with me with cheap Dale Carnegie "How to Win Friends and Influence People" tactics? LOL
Well, at least I was clear about that much. I was beginning to think I was being too cryptic or something...
Of course not. Skepticism is the eschewing of non-trivial (which is to say, not true-by-definition) certainty. Nothing more; nothing LESS. Even recognizing true-by-definition certainty still involves the recognition of stipulations as stipulations only. Certainty is entirely a construct of language. To not eschew certainty is to not be a skeptic. It really is that easy.
I do. I do not vote because I recognize that the party whip, both as an office and as a institution does not permit the "representatives" to represent their constituencies. I do not lend legitimacy to a system that fails to do what it claims to do - thereby exhibiting a failure of internal consistency and a betrayal of its mandate. WTH? Why are we talking politics here? LOL!
About "logical systems" that do not have a strict, dogmatic true-false dichotomy. The most practical, everyday application of logic is in terms of computer programming. In coding, a conditional often has a value referred to "true" or "false," but in no way do these designations have the same kind of meanings as they do in natural discourse, despite a rather superficial attempt to make it seem so (we can forgive them that; after all, they started with only classical logic to work with. By then, the biases were already very well-established). They are merely contradictory, alternative values. There is no reason, in principle why one could not have any number of possible values, and we can make up natural discourse meanings to supervene on them all, if we wish.
Also in computer programming multi-state "case" statements represent multi-value logic, simply because true and false are simply not enough options for the conditional. I posit that this is the case with reality as well, although it hasn't been recognized as such throughout our dogma-driven history.
One can make a coherent, if somewhat subtle, argument that the attempt to assign truth values (in the sense that one is absolutely confident in the relationship between the proposition and the state it which it refers) to propositions is, itself, a serious error. Fortunately, we have a tool that allows us to combat this unfortunate tendency - skepticism. When one considers truth-values in natural discourse with some degree of care, one begins to see that the assignment of truth-values to a proposition is an attempt to shoehorn reality into a proposition by sheer force of will, as if, in some way, we are imposing our will on reality. This, of course, is controversial and represents an attempt to do real philosophical work. (I fully expect Darat to move the thread to - I don't know, what? sports? - because of this. My apologies to all).
But, I'm sure that point is too subtle, relying, as it does, on the understanding (or misunderstanding) of a relationship between a proposition, he/she/it who applies it, and that to which it is "applied." However, studies and work on multi-value logics is a well-established field (set of fields, actually) of study. For your amusement: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-manyvalued/. Enjoy.
Of course, it's easily seen that, while I attempt to discuss the issue, you, once again, refuse to actually take part in positive work. So again, try, if you can, to imagine a case where not-true does not equal false. At least try. I'm giving you the benefit of (hehehe) the doubt here. C'mon, Claus. The grey matter hasn't hardened yet, has it? We're never too old to learn. Try...
Everything is agenda-driven. That doesn't necessarily make it bad.
Sure, Shermer wants to sell books. I do that too, when I man (HA! I OWN!) the book table at TAM. So what? Does that make me a bad skeptic?
If you want to cast doubt on Shermer because he wants to promote his ideas to the world, who can you not cast doubt on?
Me? How do I misunderstand the difference between doubt and denial?
THE question? You still somehow imagine you can control a conversation with me with cheap Dale Carnegie "How to Win Friends and Influence People" tactics? LOL
Well, at least I was clear about that much. I was beginning to think I was being too cryptic or something...
Of course not. Skepticism is the eschewing of non-trivial (which is to say, not true-by-definition) certainty. Nothing more; nothing LESS. Even recognizing true-by-definition certainty still involves the recognition of stipulations as stipulations only. Certainty is entirely a construct of language. To not eschew certainty is to not be a skeptic. It really is that easy.
I do. I do not vote because I recognize that the party whip, both as an office and as a institution does not permit the "representatives" to represent their constituencies. I do not lend legitimacy to a system that fails to do what it claims to do - thereby exhibiting a failure of internal consistency and a betrayal of its mandate. WTH? Why are we talking politics here? LOL!
About "logical systems" that do not have a strict, dogmatic true-false dichotomy. The most practical, everyday application of logic is in terms of computer programming. In coding, a conditional often has a value referred to "true" or "false," but in no way do these designations have the same kind of meanings as they do in natural discourse, despite a rather superficial attempt to make it seem so (we can forgive them that; after all, they started with only classical logic to work with. By then, the biases were already very well-established). They are merely contradictory, alternative values. There is no reason, in principle why one could not have any number of possible values, and we can make up natural discourse meanings to supervene on them all, if we wish.
Also in computer programming multi-state "case" statements represent multi-value logic, simply because true and false are simply not enough options for the conditional. I posit that this is the case with reality as well, although it hasn't been recognized as such throughout our dogma-driven history.
One can make a coherent, if somewhat subtle, argument that the attempt to assign truth values (in the sense that one is absolutely confident in the relationship between the proposition and the state it which it refers) to propositions is, itself, a serious error. Fortunately, we have a tool that allows us to combat this unfortunate tendency - skepticism. When one considers truth-values in natural discourse with some degree of care, one begins to see that the assignment of truth-values to a proposition is an attempt to shoehorn reality into a proposition by sheer force of will, as if, in some way, we are imposing our will on reality. This, of course, is controversial and represents an attempt to do real philosophical work. (I fully expect Darat to move the thread to - I don't know, what? sports? - because of this. My apologies to all).
But, I'm sure that point is too subtle, relying, as it does, on the understanding (or misunderstanding) of a relationship between a proposition, he/she/it who applies it, and that to which it is "applied." However, studies and work on multi-value logics is a well-established field (set of fields, actually) of study. For your amusement: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-manyvalued/. Enjoy.
Of course, it's easily seen that, while I attempt to discuss the issue, you, once again, refuse to actually take part in positive work. So again, try, if you can, to imagine a case where not-true does not equal false. At least try. I'm giving you the benefit of (hehehe) the doubt here. C'mon, Claus. The grey matter hasn't hardened yet, has it? We're never too old to learn. Try...
What in the blue **** was that all about? Don't give me a load of crap. Just answer the questions:
Which political platform is the most rational?
Which presidential candidate should Americans vote for, because (s)he is the most rational?
You made it clear that you don't think anything is outside the scope of skepticism. Apply your skepticism to politics, please.
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
Great site. Thank you. Reason I thought Shermer was agnostic. A quote in one of his books, can't remember which, [he has many books out there.] He says ''What difference does it make if God used evolution or creationism to create the world'' Or words to that effect.
All the best, Angelo.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
He was once an evangelical Christian... and I think he originally called himself a pantheist when he first became a skeptic... agnostic really means that you don't think the question can be known... (if god is invisible and immeasurable then nobody CAN know anything about him or even if he exists...). Although most people think of agnostic as "being on the fence", they really aren't terms about the same thing. Most people think that atheism is an affirmation that there are no gods--but it's just lacking a belief in any gods. If an agnostic doesn't have a god or gods they do believe in, then technically, there are also atheists. But these are all terms people give themselves just like Christians. I like skeptic because it encompasses more than that. I think Shermer's approach is a bit wimpy and people seem to find more outspoken atheists such as Dawkins or Hitchens to speak for them. Like Sam Harris, I don't think religion or faith should be coddled or given special respect or be free from scrutiny. I like Shermer too. I just think that you need to provoke people a little more if you want them to think rationally. Shermer is more concerned that people learn about evolution... as is Eugenie Scott... they try to cultivate the idea that understanding evolution doesn't lead to atheism... they keep things softer because they feel it welcomes more people under the umbrella. I can't do it because I feel like I'm propping up faith... and I don't think faith is a good way to know anything at all. I think it's dangerous and the opposite of skepticism and science--the very best tools we humans have for understanding and influencing our world and teaching each other.
The Beyond Belief tapes are great. I really liked Shermer, Harry Kroto, Sam Harris, Sean Carroll, Ramachandran, PZ Meyers, DeSousa, Patricia Churchland, and John Allen Paulos. Last years tapes were fantastic too. I think there's room for all kinds of approaches, but I am not able to defer to religion or respect it-- I respect people... not the woo they've been indoctrinated with and promised goodies for and threatened with eternal punishment for disbelieving.
- Status