Being skeptical of skepticism?

[chillzero]

I think we're getting bogged down in semantics(and the instinctive need to disagree with old CF as a matter of principle.) Something isn't evidence until it is discovered. It can exist for centuries, but it doesn't become evidence until it is classified as such by people.

We obviously have different definitions of evidence. I think evidence is still evidence even if undiscovered or un-looked for, like a buried fossil of an as-yet undiscovered organism. Obviously Claus and Joe think it is more like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in that it is nothing until observed. The term "undiscovered evidence" has no meaning for them.

There is not much point in arguing about this.
***
ETA: LOL. I see Joe and I have reached the same conclusion nearly simultaneously.

I'm with you two on this (more so with Tricky ).

 

[Tricky]

You naive newbie!

Dang it! Just give me another ten-thousand posts or so. I'll eventually get the hang of it.

 

[JoeEllison]

Very cool

You've never heard of cases that were later overturned because of previously undiscovered evidence? That evidence was still evidence but could not be put to use, regardless of its description - just as a flower is still red, or blue, even if no one has described it as such.

It isn't evidence until it is discovered. It could potentially be evidence someday, of course... if you think about it further, based on the legal expertise one gains from watching a combined total of probably hundreds of seasons of police procedural shows, something can fail to be evidence even after collected, photographed, and analyzed six ways from Sunday. Evidence, from a legal sense, only counts if it is allowed to be admitted as evidence in court. It works the same way from a scientific perspective. Something is accepted as evidence only when it has gone through the appropriate tests, and those tests have been peer reviewed and what-not. Things have to be examined and such to be considered evidence.

Here's a simple one:

Do you question the existence of Sylvia Browne's book?

Does it count as evidence of Sylvia Browne's psychic powers?

 

[chillzero]

Here's a simple one:

Do you question the existence of Sylvia Browne's book?

No.

Does it count as evidence of Sylvia Browne's psychic powers?

It counts as evidence of her claims, which is different.
And - believe it or not - 20 minutes ago, when I was unaware of it, it was still evidence of her claims.
However, I thought we were laying that semantic issue aside. (No more hugs for you otherwise!)

 

[JoeEllison]

Nobody mentioned hugs...

 

[Darat]

Evidence?

 

[chillzero]

Nobody mentioned hugs...

(Post 141)

 

[Tricky]

It isn't evidence until it is discovered. It could potentially be evidence someday, of course... if you think about it further, based on the legal expertise one gains from watching a combined total of probably hundreds of seasons of police procedural shows, something can fail to be evidence even after collected, photographed, and analyzed six ways from Sunday. Evidence, from a legal sense, only counts if it is allowed to be admitted as evidence in court. It works the same way from a scientific perspective. Something is accepted as evidence only when it has gone through the appropriate tests, and those tests have been peer reviewed and what-not. Things have to be examined and such to be considered evidence.

I don't think you can compare legal and scientific evidence, but even in the legal example you give, there is a distinction between evidence and admitted evidence. In a court, you couldn't admit evidence that had been illegally gathered, but in science, a fossil, for example, is still evidence of a pre-existing organism, even if it is stolen from private land.

Also, the Sylvia example illustrates another problem with just throwing out the word "evidence", in that the quality and nature of the evidence is essential. Are anecdotes "evidence"? By some lights, yes they are, but many times they are not good evidence because the source is questionable. On the other hand, so-called "expert testimony" is nothing but anecdotes, yet it may be considered good evidence in some cases because of the credentials of the speaker.

 

[drkitten]

Ugh, no. If a person cannot acknowledge that skepticism means to question, then that person does not have a firm understanding of semantics.

Ah, yes, the good old argumentum-ad-dictionary. Except in this case, you don't even have a dictionary to fall back on when you're losing.

To be skeptical of a certain idea, view, or finding means to question the validity, reliability, legitimacy of that particular ideology, conclusion, or that theory.

You know, no matter how many times you repeat your mistakes, they're still mistakes.

 

[martu]

No, you didn't answer the question. You merely said that you question and examine how you come to conclusion. That is what skepticism is - not how you are skeptical of skepticism itself.

I really don't think you understand the difference. Oh, well.

CFLarsen are you open to the possibility that everything we have learnt following the skeptic method is wrong? Because if you aren't you're not a True Skeptic (TM patent pending) you know....

My brain hurts.

Hey where did the teenage Libertarian with the hots for Rand go? I wanted to tell him that he can move to Russia if he wants to experience anarcho-capitalism.

 

[deep]

I'm skeptical of skeptics who assert negative claims without providing any proof. For example:

A: I've discovered that the Loch Ness Monster exists.
B: Can you prove that?
A: No.
B: Then that disproves your claim.
​

A truly skeptical person would remain agnostic, making no claim of his or her own. In the example above, person "B" is subject to the same burden of proof as person "A", but neither one of them have fulfilled it.

 

[Gravy]

I'm skeptical of skeptics who assert negative claims without providing any proof. For example:

A: I've discovered that the Loch Ness Monster exists.
B: Can you prove that?
A: No.
B: Then that disproves your claim.
​

A truly skeptical person would remain agnostic, making no claim of his or her own. In the example above, person "B" is subject to the same burden of proof as person "A", but neither one of them have fulfilled it.

Try again, and this time present real-world examples of skeptics doing that, not a fantasy example. If you cannot, you'll want to look up what a strawman fallacy is.

 

[Mashuna]

I'm skeptical of skeptics who assert negative claims without providing any proof. For example:

A: I've discovered that the Loch Ness Monster exists.
B: Can you prove that?
A: No.
B: Then that disproves your claim.
​

A truly skeptical person would remain agnostic, making no claim of his or her own. In the example above, person "B" is subject to the same burden of proof as person "A", but neither one of them have fulfilled it.

I think the conversation would be more like this:

A: I've discovered that the Loch Ness Monster exists.
B: Can you prove that?
A: No.
B: I'm off to the pub.
​

 

[deep]

Try again, and this time present real-world examples of skeptics doing that, not a fantasy example. If you cannot, you'll want to look up what a strawman fallacy is.

From the Bigfoot thread:

"Nobody will ever produce a Bigfoot body because Bigfoot does not exist."
​

Now would be a good time to mention that I'm also skeptical of skeptics who "move the goalposts".

 

[Hokulele]

From the Bigfoot thread:

"Nobody will ever produce a Bigfoot body because Bigfoot does not exist."
​

Now would be a good time to mention that I'm also skeptical of skeptics who "move the goalposts".

Ummm, what? This quote does not support your original claim at all.

 

[deep]

Ummm, what? This quote does not support your original claim at all.

OK, so that's not a "negative claim without proof"? Where is the proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist?

At some point, someone came along and asserted that there was a creature called "Bigfoot" roaming around the woods. A negative claim would be the opposite of that - Bigfoot doesn't exist. The burden of proof applies to both claims.

 

[Hokulele]

OK, so that's not a "negative claim without proof"? Where is the proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist?

Your original point was that someone was claiming a lack of evidence is a disproof. Big difference. Show an example of this or retract your claim.

At some point, someone came along and asserted that there was a creature called "Bigfoot" roaming around the woods. A negative claim would be the opposite of that - Bigfoot doesn't exist. The burden of proof applies to both claims.

Nope. Read up on negative proof and Occam's Razor. It is reasonable to conclude something does not exist in the absence of evidence.

 

[deep]

Your original point was that someone was claiming a lack of evidence is a disproof. Big difference. Show an example of this or retract your claim.

You might want to go read my original message again. I clearly state, in the very first sentence: "I'm skeptical of skeptics who assert negative claims without providing any proof".

Oops?

Nope. Read up on negative proof and Occam's Razor. It is reasonable to assume something does not exist in the absence of evidence.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about - you even believe the behavior is justified.

Occam's Razor is a a philosophical rule of thumb, not a scientific law. As for "negative proof", look no further than the fallacious statement, "you can't prove Bigfoot exists, so he doesn't" for an example of it.

 

[JoeEllison]

Occam's Razor is a a philosophical rule of thumb, not a scientific law. As for "negative proof", look no further than the fallacious statement, "you can't prove Bigfoot exists, so he doesn't" for an example of it.

From an absolute standpoint, you are right: "you can't prove Bigfoot exists, so he doesn't" is a fallacy.

However, from a pragmatic, practical, non-absolute, real-world position... "you can't prove Bigfoot exists, so he doesn't" is almost so obviously correct that I forgive people who accidentally sound absolutist. A more correct statement would be "you can't prove Bigfoot exists, so you are foolish to claim that it does" or "you can't prove Bigfoot exists, so the most reasonable thing to do it to treat it as though it doesn't exist."

The default position based on complete lack of solid evidence is to treat Bigfoot(and unicorns and fairies and Jesus) as though they don't exist. I have no burden of proof in this situation. You have to prove that something DOES exist, I don't have to prove that it doesn't. From a practical standpoint, if you can't show something exists, it doesn't exist in any meaningful way.

 

[Hokulele]

You might want to go read my original message again. I clearly state, in the very first sentence: "I'm skeptical of skeptics who assert negative claims without providing any proof".

Lovely, your example was not one of asserting a negative claim. To wit:

A: I've discovered that the Loch Ness Monster exists.
B: Can you prove that?
A: No.
B: Then that disproves your claim.

This would be a fallacy if someone had made this argument. The quote you dragged in does not follow this pattern.

Oops?

And right back atcha. Your example fails to support your claim, and the quote you dragged in fails to support your example. In your Loch Ness example, you have an assertion without evidence on the part of person A. If there should be evidence that the Loch Ness monster exists (sonar readings of the Loch, scat, etc.), and that evidence fails to materialize, the hypothesis can be said to be false. The only way your pattern applies is for arguments that are not falsifiable (invisible dragon in the garage), which are completely pointless, other than as mental masturbation.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about - you even believe the behavior is justified.

Absolutely. If you believe the behavior is not justified, I have a bridge for sale. It's a real bargain.

Occam's Razor is a a philosophical rule of thumb, not a scientific law.

Epistemology is philosophy, no? Skepticism follows epistemology, no?

As for "negative proof", look no further than the fallacious statement, "you can't prove Bigfoot exists, so he doesn't" for an example of it.

And in this example, Occam's Razor applies (minimizing assumptions).


To the OP, there is a difference between being skeptical of skepticism, and being skeptical of people who label themselves as such. I offer deep44 as Exhibit A.