Being skeptical of skepticism?

[deep]

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

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.

If your position is truly agnostic, that's fine - I agree. The skeptics I'm referring to do not take an agnostic position, though.

For example, this latest claim that someone found the body of a "Bigfoot" in Georgia. Several people over in that thread have decided that the claim is definitely a hoax, citing their fallacious belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist as evidence of such.

Sure, I suspect that it's a hoax, but I don't know for sure. Therefore, I will continue to monitor the situation with an open mind to see if they're actually going to offer any proof of their discovery.

 

[deep]

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

Yes it does. They're both "negative proof". The statements may be different, but the proposition is the same.

EDIT: just to clarify, the quote I brought in was from a debunker, so the "you can't prove that Bigfoot exists" part is implied. Hopefully that clears things up.

 

[Belz...]

One of the advantages of skepticism is that, on the whole, skeptics, by consciously engaging their brains, will learn faster than those who use their "gut" as a repository of knowledge.

And avoid growing fatter in the process.

 

[Belz...]

For example, this latest claim that someone found the body of a "Bigfoot" in Georgia. Several people over in that thread have decided that the claim is definitely a hoax, citing their fallacious belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist as evidence of such.

At some point, however, you have to be sure of something. If we suspend judgment of everything because there can't be definitive proof, then skeptical inquiry is useless because it never leads to answers.

I believe in a more pragmatic approach to skepticism, myself. The "for all intents and purposes" type of thing.

 

[Gravy]

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".

You're skeptical of yourself? That's a healthy admission: you have many reasons to hold such skepticism. Excellent progress since I knew you from the CT subforum!

 

[deep]

You're skeptical of yourself?

Provide an example.

(you'll come up with some excuse not to, because there isn't one)

By the way, did you notice that were wrong earlier? You didn't mention anything about that - just wanted to make sure you're aware of it.

 

[deep]

At some point, however, you have to be sure of something. If we suspend judgment of everything because there can't be definitive proof, then skeptical inquiry is useless because it never leads to answers.

I believe in a more pragmatic approach to skepticism, myself. The "for all intents and purposes" type of thing.

The answers lie in what can be scientifically proven. A skeptic ("doubter") shouldn't make any claims of his or her own, and therefore assumes no burden of proof.

The pragmatic approach to skepticism you're referring to relies on fallacious arguments ("negative proof", as established earlier in this thread). I just don't see how that's deemed acceptable by anyone who thinks of him or herself as a skeptic.

 

[drkitten]

The pragmatic approach to skepticism you're referring to relies on fallacious arguments ("negative proof", as established earlier in this thread). I just don't see how that's deemed acceptable by anyone who thinks of him or herself as a skeptic.

Because "fallacy" doesn't mean what you think it does.

You can't avoid fallacious arguments and hope to survive. My belief that my car is still on the sixth floor of the parking garage is based on the fallacious argument that that's where I parked and locked it. It's fallacious because someone could have broken in and stolen it, or for that matter, Narnian fauns could have turned it into a breadfruit tree. But if I limit myself only to non-fallacious reasoning about the current location of my car, I'll never get home tonight. (Home? Why can I even believe that I still have a home? Perhaps the Klingons have spirited it away to Orion IV and it's currently inhabited by green-skinned slave girls!)

 

[Mashuna]

The answers lie in what can be scientifically proven. A skeptic ("doubter") shouldn't make any claims of his or her own, and therefore assumes no burden of proof.

The pragmatic approach to skepticism you're referring to relies on fallacious arguments ("negative proof", as established earlier in this thread). I just don't see how that's deemed acceptable by anyone who thinks of him or herself as a skeptic.

If you want formal proof, take up mathematics. Otherwise you need to take a pragmatic approach. A pragmatic approach based on overwhelming probability and evidence. Like science, for example.

 

[deep]

You can't avoid fallacious arguments and hope to survive. My belief that my car is still on the sixth floor of the parking garage is based on the fallacious argument that that's where I parked and locked it.

Yes.. that's the way logic works. The trick is not arguing with someone that your car is definitely there, because you have no way of knowing for sure.

 

[JoeEllison]

If your position is truly agnostic, that's fine - I agree. The skeptics I'm referring to do not take an agnostic position, though.

For example, this latest claim that someone found the body of a "Bigfoot" in Georgia. Several people over in that thread have decided that the claim is definitely a hoax, citing their fallacious belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist as evidence of such.

Sure, I suspect that it's a hoax, but I don't know for sure. Therefore, I will continue to monitor the situation with an open mind to see if they're actually going to offer any proof of their discovery.

But it is almost certainly a hoax, and there's little reason to treat it otherwise. "Bigfoot doesn't exist" isn't a fallacious position BTW: it is the default position. We don't claim things exist without evidence, so without evidence the default is that they don't exist. You can get nitpicky and cry about how we should be "agnostic" about everything in practice as well as principle, but when the evidence for something approached zero or 100%, there's no reason to bother with the "agnostic" position. Otherwise, you're saying that we can't make any assertions about the world at all.

 

[martu]

The answers lie in what can be scientifically proven.

Can you give us an example of something that can be 'scientifically proven'?

 

[deep]

If you want formal proof, take up mathematics. Otherwise you need to take a pragmatic approach. A pragmatic approach based on overwhelming probability and evidence. Like science, for example.

No, nobody "needs" to take a pragmatic (i.e., fallacious) approach to skepticism. In fact, I'm not sure I would even classify that pragmatic approach as "skepticism" - it's more like "pseudoskepticism", as defined by Marcello Truzzi (he also reportedly originated the phrase, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof").

 

[Mashuna]

No, nobody "needs" to take a pragmatic (i.e., fallacious) approach to skepticism. In fact, I'm not sure I would even classify that pragmatic approach as "skepticism" - it's more like "pseudoskepticism", as defined by Marcello Truzzi (he also reportedly originated the phrase, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof").

But by your reasoning, no proof, no matter how extraordinary, would be enough.

 

[EHocking]

If your position is truly agnostic, that's fine - I agree. The skeptics I'm referring to do not take an agnostic position, though.

For example, this latest claim that someone found the body of a "Bigfoot" in Georgia. Several people over in that thread have decided that the claim is definitely a hoax, citing their fallacious belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist as evidence of such.

Sure, I suspect that it's a hoax, but I don't know for sure. Therefore, I will continue to monitor the situation with an open mind to see if they're actually going to offer any proof of their discovery.

It's only my opinion, but I think that you are overplaying the agnostic, fence-sitting sceptic role here. In the thread you refer to a number of people have shown that some of the "evidence" produced so far has been invented.

The "anthropologist" from Texas in the initical video was in fact the brother of one of the videographers, being just one small point.

The website is "for entertainment purposes only".

The physical evidence has been given into the possession of a BF hunter with a known record of perpetuating hoaxes or misrepresenting evidence himself.

The DNA testing is being done by a declared BF proponent.

All added up the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

In the face of the "evidence" produced so far, it is not an unreasonable stance to declare that this is more likely to be a hoax that evidence for the existence of BF.

Declaring that the whole thread can be summed up by a sceptic says it can't be so because of their unrelenting disbelief in the existence of BF is a misrepresentation of the discussion of the evidence presented so far of this (extremely likely) hoax.

I have a similar stance on dowsing and non-human crop circles makers.
The evidence is so weak or has been so readily exposed as deeply flawed if not concocted, that I am very confidenct in asserting that there is no basis to the "art" of dowsing, or that crop circles are anything other than shapes trampled into crop by people.
In a similar fashion, and following a similar thought process, I am no longer agnostic in my attitude to the existence of a Christian god (or any other for that matter).

 

[deep]

Can you give us an example of something that can be 'scientifically proven'?

The mass of a closed system will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system.

 

[Mashuna]

The mass of a closed system will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system.

So you're happy to go with a pragmatic definition of 'prove' then?

 

[martu]

The mass of a closed system will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system.

Can you show me your proof for this please?

 

[Belz...]

The pragmatic approach to skepticism you're referring to relies on fallacious arguments ("negative proof", as established earlier in this thread). I just don't see how that's deemed acceptable by anyone who thinks of him or herself as a skeptic.

It's amazing you can actually type and do things and not spend all of your days drooling on yourself, then. How can you possibly make any kind of decision without assuming that the world is, for all intents and purposes, real, etc. ?

We all make assumptions, and at one point we all need to decide that, for all intents and purposes, some things are true and others are false. Being in perpetual doubt about everything can only lead to nothing. And how useful is that ?

The point of skepticism is beign a methodology that is as useful as possible. If it can't lead you to conclusions, even if that means ignoring remote possibilities, then it has no use at all.

 

[deep]

It's only my opinion, but I think that you are overplaying the agnostic, fence-sitting sceptic role here. In the thread you refer to a number of people have shown that some of the "evidence" produced so far has been invented.

Well, I agree - it certainly does appear to be a hoax, but what if it isn't? If I decide that it's definitely a hoax, that makes it difficult to objectively evaluate any future evidence they may present.

Maintaining an agnostic point of view eliminates (or greatly reduces) the possibility of confirmation bias.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion though - I have no problem that.