Being skeptical of skepticism?

[chillzero]

Absolutely. As soon as examining the evidence becomes a bad way to evaluate the truth of a proposition, I will drop it like a hot potato.

Can you give an example?

How would you propose anyone do that?

By giving an example.

An example of what, exactly?

Of when examining the evidence becomes a bad way to evaluate the truth of a proposition.

Again... how would you propose anyone do that?
Perhaps you should read the above again - and read Tricky's post in particular with a little more care.

 

[Alex Libman]

How will skepticism help you differentiate between medical claims of efficacy?

Competing scientific journals publishing clinical studies, and more mainstream competing publications summarizing the effectiveness rates, risks, etc. There will be disputes, especially about new and experimental treatments, so the reputation ranking of various individuals and other market entities will also be taken into consideration.

Without a dictator (i.e. the FDA) nothing would ever seem 100% certain, but the current illusion of certainty is just that - an illusion. People will find it in their interest to stop thinking in black-and-white terms, as opposed to readily over-medicating on things that pass the government approval process, and not having a access to things that don't. Ultimately a consensus about a product's safety and effectiveness will be reached - probably faster than the time it takes to even start filing the first batch of paperwork with the current bureaucracy.

 

[technoextreme]

Without a dictator (i.e. the FDA) nothing would ever seem 100% certain, but the current illusion of certainty is just that - an illusion.

The illusion of certain is a fantasy that you created. I don't about you but my drugs typically have a list of things that may or may not happen to me.

People will find it in their interest to stop thinking in black-and-white terms, as opposed to readily over-medicating on things that pass the government approval process, and not having a access to things that don't.

Dumb stupid and moronic. There is a good reason why the drugs don't pass the government approval process. They more than likely will kill or cause grave injury to the person taking the drug. I wish I could find that story where three British people who went under a drug trial suffered horribly life threatening injuries because the "evil bureaucracy" missed the fact that the drug was dangerous.

 

[Alex Libman]

Assuming this is what you mean by Anarcho-capitalism:

I'm not looking for a pure Utopian fantasy, but rather a vision to gradually move toward.

Thanks, I'll keep the FDA.

No one's saying that you can't, but instead of controlling access to the market the FDA would merely issue certifications for what products it approves of, and you'd of course have to pay for it yourself (possibly through fees built into the prices of approved products). And there'd be other similar organizations competing with it for your trust.

 

[billydkid]

Is there a certain kind of skeptically-minded folk who are skeptical of skepticism? Is it possible to be skeptical of skepticism?

Isn't the opposite of skepticism simply to be credulous? To accept the premise that you can be skeptical of skepticism is to suggest that there is some plausible merit to believing whatever anyone tells you or believing anything and everything.

 

[technoextreme]

No one's saying that you can't, but instead of controlling access to the market the FDA would merely issue certifications for what products it approves of, and you'd of course have to pay for it yourself (possibly through fees built into the prices of approved products). And there'd be other similar organizations competing with it for your trust.

What would the accomplish except a lot more dead people?

 

[Alex Libman]

I don't about you but my drugs typically have a list of things that may or may not happen to me.

And certainty over the validity / completeness of that list is one of the illusions.

And if government medical regulation agencies are infallible, why do they often disagree? Why are findings for same drugs different for Germany or Japan? If one regulation agency is better than an other, wouldn't you prefer to have a choice over which one you trust?

There is a good reason why the drugs don't pass the government approval process.

Somebody didn't pay a few billion in bribes?

Seriously - don't take an uncertified drug. That's all there is to it.

I wish I could find that story where three British people who went under a drug trial suffered horribly life threatening injuries because the "evil bureaucracy" missed the fact that the drug was dangerous.

Now you're just proving my point for me.

What would the accomplish except a lot more dead people?

Fewer dead people, fewer injured people, more medical choices, lower health-care costs, more / faster medical innovation, and most importantly - more freedom from the mafia organization you call "government".

 

[CFLarsen]

Again... how would you propose anyone do that?
Perhaps you should read the above again - and read Tricky's post in particular with a little more care.

If you have a problem, explain what it is.

 

[technoextreme]

Seriously - don't take an uncertified drug. That's all there is to it.

You do realize that the FDA doesn't just regulate drugs. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: I only now just remembered that but that makes me a genius compared to you when it comes to the FDA.

Seriously - don't take an uncertified drug. That's all there is to it.

No seriously leave it the way it is. You haven't proven anything. The stuff that works will be proven to work in the same amount of time that the FDA currently takes right now. All your method will do is allow crap to seep through the floodgates.

 

[chillzero]

If you have a problem, explain what it is.

Sure. Read this:

Absolutely. As soon as examining the evidence becomes a bad way to evaluate the truth of a proposition, I will drop it like a hot potato.

There is nothing there for which an example can be given. Tricky states that should the event ever happen that ("as soon as") examining the evidence is shown to be the wrong approach, then he won't continue to use that approach ("drop it like a hot potato"). Clearly, since he still uses that approach ("I will"; not "I did"), he has not yet come across a situation where examining the evidence was a bad way to evaluate the truth of a proposition. Therefore there is no example he can give. However in his response to the OP, since he is open to the possibility that this approach may not always work (the fact he is open to dropping this tactical approach should the evidence show it's inappropriate), then "Absolutely" - he is skeptical of skepticism, as all skeptics should be.

So - why on earth are you asking for an example?

 

[Alex Libman]

(I'll skip questions I've already answered or do not see any merit in.)

I know it it is a subjective decision. That's why I asked you: Where, exactly, is that "threshold of evilness"?

My own trigger points are irrelevant, especially since I've learned a lot since then.

Where will you go?

Not sure yet. A lot of very smart people seem to be interested in something called the Free State Project in New Hampshire, but I see that as nothing more than a staging area. Maybe there'll be a Free Island Project of some sorts, someday a Free Space Station Project. Etc. (And maybe there are some "escape" projects I am not at liberty to discuss.) Sooner or later, Atlas will find a way to shrug.

Are you saying that people who visit faith healers really want to kill themselves?

I'm not, but that would be a very good topic of a psychology dissertation...

No, I wouldn't. What about Denmark?

Ah, Denmark, every euro-socialist's favorite Potemkin Village. Their mafia bosses, err, I mean government officials have been very kind to them so far, and that's why this 0.08% of world's population haven't had many government atrocities in their recent history. And all I'd have to give up to have this "freedom" is a 63.33% income tax on 3/4th of my income, 59.7% capital gains tax, 25% sales tax, and the list goes on. Isn't government wonderful?

When has there ever been a "free competition of ideas"? What do you mean by "greater transparency and innovation"?

I'm not here to give you an introductory economics lecture. There are a few nice ones by Milton Friedman that you should watch on your own time.

 

[technoextreme]

I'm not, but that would be a very good topic of a psychology dissertation...

So if don't think that people who visit faith healers are trying to kill themselves you don't want to stop them why???

If either a public officer or any one else saw a person attempting to cross a bridge which had been ascertained to be unsafe, and there were no time to warn him of his danger, they might seize him and turn him back without any real infringement of his liberty; for liberty consists in doing what one desires, and he does not desire to fall into the river.

I don't know why but I love that explanation of liberalism.

 

[Tricky]

C'mon, Claus, don't derail the thread with your weirdness. I want to hear Alex talk some more crazy talk.

Don't worry. I'm not going to go to the mats with Claus over this. Most people with reading comprehension skills and a basic sense of humor realized that I had made a slightly slightly sarcastic comment aimed at the OP.

Asking for evidence of the value of truth without evidence is just as much a logical error as asking one to be skeptical about skepticism.

Over to you, Alex.

 

[CFLarsen]

(I'll skip questions I've already answered or do not see any merit in.)

You are not the sole arbiter of what questions have merit.

My own trigger points are irrelevant, especially since I've learned a lot since then.

Then, why even mention it? If you can't explain when this "threshold of evilness" is reached, it merely becomes a fatuous statement.

Not sure yet. A lot of very smart people seem to be interested in something called the Free State Project in New Hampshire, but I see that as nothing more than a staging area. Maybe there'll be a Free Island Project of some sorts, someday a Free Space Station Project. Etc. (And maybe there are some "escape" projects I am not at liberty to discuss.) Sooner or later, Atlas will find a way to shrug.

What on Earth makes you think either a Free Island Project or a Free Space Station Project would happen?

Where would this island be? Who would pay for the space station?

I'm not, but that would be a very good topic of a psychology dissertation...

Then, what are you saying about those who go to a faith healer and expect to be healed?

Ah, Denmark, every euro-socialist's favorite Potemkin Village. Their mafia bosses, err, I mean government officials have been very kind to them so far, and that's why this 0.08% of world's population haven't had many government atrocities in their recent history. And all I'd have to give up to have this "freedom" is a 63.33% income tax on 3/4th of my income, 59.7% capital gains tax, 25% sales tax, and the list goes on. Isn't government wonderful?

You know absolutely nothing about Denmark.

I'm not here to give you an introductory economics lecture. There are a few nice ones by Milton Friedman that you should watch on your own time.

All you need to do is name the time and place where there has been "free competition of ideas".

And if you can't explain what "greater transparency and innovation" means, you don't understand it yourself. You are just parroting someone you think sound cool.

There is nothing there for which an example can be given.

Of course he can give an example - if he can think of one. Or say that no such situation would occur.

Tricky states that should the event ever happen that ("as soon as") examining the evidence is shown to be the wrong approach, then he won't continue to use that approach ("drop it like a hot potato"). Clearly, since he still uses that approach ("I will"; not "I did"), he has not yet come across a situation where examining the evidence was a bad way to evaluate the truth of a proposition. Therefore there is no example he can give. However in his response to the OP, since he is open to the possibility that this approach may not always work (the fact he is open to dropping this tactical approach should the evidence show it's inappropriate), then "Absolutely" - he is skeptical of skepticism, as all skeptics should be.

But skepticism as a way of thinking has a long historical tradition that can be traced back at least 2,500 years. The foremost historian of skepticism, Richard Popkin, tells us (1979, p. xiii): “Academic scepticism, so-called because it was formulated in the Platonic Academy in the third century, B.C., developed from the Socratic observation, ‘All I know is that I know nothing.’” Two of the popular received meanings of the word by many people today are that a skeptic believes nothing, or is closed minded to certain beliefs. There is good reason for the perception of the first meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives this common usage for the word skeptic:

One who, like Pyrrho and his followers in Greek antiquity, doubts the possibility of real knowledge of any kind; one who holds that there are no adequate grounds for certainty as to the truth of any proposition whatever (Vol. 2, p. 2663).​

Since this position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one (except a few confused solipsists who doubt even their own existence), it is no wonder that so many find skepticism disturbing. A more productive meaning of the word skeptic is the second usage given by the OED:

One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry; one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to some particular question or statement.​

Source

 

[technoextreme]

Ahhh the head bash emoticon. It's exactly the precise way to express my annoyance in a pixelated form.

 

[chillzero]

Of course he can give an example - if he can think of one. Or say that no such situation would occur.
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html

Read it again. Slowly.

He doubts that such a situation would occur, given that he has no prior examples, because... surprise surprise ... it has served well so far.

Good grief Claus, this is really simple stuff.

 

[technoextreme]

Good grief Claus, this is really simple stuff.

Hey give the guy some slack. It wouldn't be the first time someone really smart did something really stupid lest I point the to the mushroom topic.

 

[tyr_13]

When I read the title of this thread, this is the scene that went through my head.

Person one, the skeptic.: I demand a good amount of credible evidence for your claim.

Person two, skeptical of the skeptic.: I demand a good amount of credible evidence that you are demanding a good amount of credible evidence for my claim.

Person One.: Ummm, no foolin'.

Person Two.: Acceptable.

 

[Brian-M]

People who just want to go with the flow and follow the default advice will still be able to do that, but ultimately everyone would be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

You go to a faith-healer instead of following rational medical advice - you die. Your loss.

If all pseudo-medical healers were honest about the effectiveness of their treatments, that wouldn't be a problem. The real problem is that they lie to people, providing endless "scientific" documentation to prove it works, and often believe it works themselves. You're basically sentencing people to death for lacking the education/reasoning-skills to tell the difference between real medicine and fake medicine pretending to be real.


Also, does it occur to you that a stateless anarcho-capitalism would almost immediately transform into an unofficial plutocracy? You wouldn't have a true stateless society for long. Given the choice between democracy and plutocracy, I know what I'd prefer.

 

[Limbo]

Skeptics are skeptical of a lot of things. A laundry list of things...the list goes on and on.

So lets say someone experiences something on the laundry list. Phenomena #1, for the sake of argument. Something which skeptics say is...unlikely...to say the least. Maybe phenomena #2 as well.

That someone would hear skeptics say all sorts of things about how these phenomena are "de-bunked". They would hear all sorts of mundane explanations which lack explanatory power...from good people who mean well.

That someone would then perhaps smile, shake their head, and think something like, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"...because they KNOW the skeptics are wrong. They experienced things which the skeptics vehemently deny is possible.

Then, when it comes to other phenomena on the laundry list, it becomes much easier for that someone to see how skeptics could be wrong about those as well. Or perhaps only half-wrong. So that someone begins looking into things. Begins thinking outside the box. Begins personal research and studies which skeptics would not usually engage in because they are not interested in the subject matter and/or think what's the point? It's a waste of time. De-bunked. End of story.

Eventually that someone has looked in places skeptics never go...knows things which skeptics couldn't even imagine...connected dots in ways that skeptics would never think of...it wouldn't occur to them. How could it? It wouldn't fit in their paradigm of thought...wouldn't fit in the circumstances of their lives.

...and that someone then finds that skeptics won't listen. They can't listen...because they lack the personal experience and the necessary background knowledge. Background knowledge which that someone has gained from their own diverse research...years of research which is tempered by personal experience, wisdom, and their own unique brand of "skepticism".

Probably hard for skeptics to put themselves in that someones shoes and walk an imaginary mile. Until they can do that, they can't be "skeptical of skepticism". IMO.