Where's the line between argument from ignorance and argument from evidence?

[Crocoshark]

Newbie critique & the line between argument from ignorance & argument from evidence?

Hi, I'm new here. I'm a sort-of skeptic, a skeptical believer, a semi-skeptic, not quite on your bandwagon but supportive of your cause. I have a soft spot for SOME paranormal claims but wouldn't actually bet money on any of it. I signed up because I wanted to hear skeptics address some thoughts of mine, and I wanted to play a little devil's advocate, offer some skeptical critique of the skeptic movement. So, without further ado . .

I think the two difference between "skeptics" and "non-skeptics" are ultimately the following;

1. Philosophical; I think the difference between the two sides is more philosophical then the arguments themselves would indicate. Skeptics will try to argue their case with science showing homeopathy doesn't work or giving natural explanations to ghost experiences. But the difference runs deeper. I think before skeptics make the empirical arguments about the validity of this or of that, the focus should be on the philosophical debate. The "skeptic movement" seems to be a rationalist/philosophical naturalist one, and not everyone believes that scientific evidence is or should be the exclusive means to explain the world. Case in point; the many religious people who freely admit their beliefs are completely irrational, but disagree with the position that anything irrational should be disregarded.

To me, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just as much if not more a fact of psychology than epistemology. "Extraordinary claim" is defined as something that, if true, would change drastically the paradigm with which "we" view the world. But different people have different paradigms. While gods are extraordinary to many of you, and to me as well, to the theist, the idea that all this emerged without a divine guidance is extraordinary, and require extraordinary evidence before they believe it, just like any skeptic.

2. The difference between "skeptics" and "non-skeptics" is a sliding scale; where the non-skeptic's investigation ends (wikipedia), the skeptic's search has only just begun. Some skeptics might say something along the lines of "Cryptozoologists/creationists/conspiracy theorist/whatever believe based on ignorance whereas a skeptic only believes something based on evidence", but to many the presence of footprint casts, the eye, experiences of divine revelation, anomalies and "red flags" in historic events prove the sasquatch/ID/god/conspiracy. This seems like a really captainobvious statement, I know. But is proof defined as something that leaves no other possibility but one conclusion?

If so, aren't even strong evidence-based conclusions based on "How else could it be logically explained?" or some variation of that statement, like "This is true because I can't imagine how it could reasonably be anything otherwise"?

The conspiracy theorist tries to "prove" his theory with "how else do you explain this weird thing and that weird thing?" and "X is the only thing I can think of to explain it, therefore it does." These may be arguments from ignorance or arguments from lack of imagination, but couldn't scientific conclusions be described as "arguments from less ignorance" and "arguments from less lack of imagination". It seems like a sliding scale, so what of the line between satisfactory and unsatisfactory evidence. Is it a fine line? Is it fuzzy? How do I best identify it in the case of conspiracy theories and alternative medicine?

Finally, how are things in other galaxies like gamma ray bursts and black holes proven by the scientific method? Don't these things only have photos and recordings of anomalies?

 

[drkitten]

I think the two difference between "skeptics" and "non-skeptics" are ultimately the following;

1. Philosophical; I think the difference between the two sides is more philosophical then the arguments themselves would indicate. Skeptics will try to argue their case with science showing homeopathy doesn't work or giving natural explanations to ghost experiences. But the difference runs deeper. I think before skeptics make the empirical arguments about the validity of this or of that, the focus should be on the philosophical debate. The "skeptic movement" seems to be a rationalist/philosophical naturalist one, and not everyone believes that scientific evidence is or should be the exclusive means to explain the world. Case in point; the many religious people who freely admit their beliefs are completely irrational, but disagree with the position that anything irrational should be disregarded.

Well, that's certainly a difference, but that doesn't mean that the the theists aren't simply wrong.

To me, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just as much if not more a fact of psychology than epistemology. "Extraordinary claim" is defined as something that, if true, would change drastically the paradigm with which "we" view the world. But different people have different paradigms.

And some of these people are simply wrong.

2. The difference between "skeptics" and "non-skeptics" is a sliding scale; where the non-skeptic's investigation ends (wikipedia), the skeptic's search has only just begun. Some skeptics might say something along the lines of "Cryptozoologists/creationists/conspiracy theorist/whatever believe based on ignorance whereas a skeptic only believes something based on evidence", but to many the presence of footprint casts, the eye, experiences of divine revelation, anomalies and "red flags" in historic events prove the sasquatch/ID/god/conspiracy. This seems like a really captainobvious statement, I know. But is proof defined as something that leaves no other possibility but one conclusion?

Technically, yes, but most scientists are willing to settle for mere evidence instead of mathematical "proof."

The key question, of course, is what becomes "evidence."

If so, aren't even strong evidence-based conclusions based on "How else could it be logically explained?" or some variation of that statement, like "This is true because I can't imagine how it could reasonably be anything otherwise"?

... which is why (almost) all scientific truths are provisional and subject to revision if newer information comes along. This isn't exactly news; scientists have come to expect a revolution every so often.

However, even these "revolutions" will still leave the existing edifice standing. As a physics book I read long ago put it, "science is built on the bones of dead theories. We may not know what an atom looks like, but we do know it doesn't look like a cat." If someone's "revolutionary" theory of physics suggests that heavy objects fall substantially faster than light ones, then that theory is already wrong, precisely because the new theory has to be compatible with the existing body of observations as well as predictive of new ones.

The conspiracy theorist tries to "prove" his theory with "how else do you explain this weird thing and that weird thing?" and "X is the only thing I can think of to explain it, therefore it does." These may be arguments from ignorance or arguments from lack of imagination, but couldn't scientific conclusions be described as "arguments from less ignorance" and "arguments from less lack of imagination". It seems like a sliding scale, so what of the line between satisfactory and unsatisfactory evidence. Is it a fine line? Is it fuzzy?

Quite fuzzy, which is why scientific controversies exist and why research is ongoing.

How do I best identify it in the case of conspiracy theories and alternative medicine?

Well, in many cases, the conspiracy theories and alternative medicines contradict can be directly disproven, simply because they are based on (and predict) things that just aren't true. We've done experiments, for example, on the efficacy of prayer as medical treatment that date back to Galton. It just doesn't work -- and similarly, if you think you have a theory of astrological prediction, your theory needs to be compatible with the huge history of failed astrological prediction theories.

More generally, in the event of a theory that can't be directly disproven, we've still got questions of relative plausibility. If someone's best argument is "I can't think of any other way that this could be," then when someone else can produce a plausible alternative hypothesis, the argument fails.

Finally, how are things in other galaxies like gamma ray bursts and black holes proven by the scientific method? Don't these things only have photos and recordings of anomalies?

Not quite. Black holes were actually predicted as a consequence of other theories well before they were observed; the idea that enough mass would prevent light from escaping is an easy and obvious consequence of general relativity (and in fact, dates back to the 18th century). The first formal prediction of a hypermass is, I believe, due to Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar in 1931.

The first "observation" of a black hole (Cygnus X-1, in 1964) is thus the confirmation of an existing theory; it's not like we found these odd patterns in the sky and made stuff up to explain them.

If you want a better example of wierd-stuff-explained-post-hoc, look at the history of pulsars. But again, the existence of pulsars can be easily confirmed. If you have a better and more credible explanation than a rapidly rotating ball of neutronium, feel free to provide it. And it would really help if you suggested a way by which we can disprove the neutronium and confirm your theory. But at a minimum, you can't deny the existence of pulsars.....

 

[Loss Leader]

I don't want to be too much of the thing Phil Plait advises against, so I just won't comment on your thoughts.

I'm glad you're considering these issues.

 

[John Jones]

Hi, I'm new here. I'm a sort-of skeptic, a skeptical believer, a semi-skeptic, not quite on your bandwagon but

Too long. Didn't read :lol:

 

[Crocoshark]

Well, that's certainly a difference, but that doesn't mean that the the theists aren't simply wrong.

True, but not really the point I was going for. I meant to say I think skeptics should focus more on the philosophical arguments for rationalism and philosophical naturalism, then empirical arguments as to why ghosts and gods don't exist, because many believers agree there's no empirical evidence for these things, they just don't care.

I don't want to be too much of the thing Phil Plait advises against, so I just won't comment on your thoughts.

I'm glad you're considering these issues.

What is the thing Phil Plait advises against? Besides bad astronomy?

 

[Emet]

What is the thing Phil Plait advises against? Besides bad astronomy?

LINK

 

[The Norseman]

True, but not really the point I was going for. I meant to say I think skeptics should focus more on the philosophical arguments for rationalism and philosophical naturalism, then empirical arguments as to why ghosts and gods don't exist, because many believers agree there's no empirical evidence for these things, they just don't care.

I'm not seeing what you're getting at here.

"You cannot reason someone out of something they did not reason themselves into."

So if these believers don't care that there's no evidence for their beliefs, why should skeptics care enough to focus on philosophical arguments?

What is the thing Phil Plait advises against? Besides bad astronomy?

Being a dick.

 

[John Jones]

True, but not really the point I was going for. I meant to say I think skeptics should focus more on the philosophical arguments ....

As a skeptic, there are a lot of people I go to for advice. You're not one of them.

Can you think of a reason why I should reconsider my postition?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Hi, I'm new here. I'm a sort-of skeptic, a skeptical believer, a semi-skeptic, not quite on your bandwagon but supportive of your cause. I have a soft spot for SOME paranormal claims but wouldn't actually bet money on any of it.

I signed up because I wanted to hear skeptics address some thoughts of mine, and I wanted to play a little devil's advocate, offer some skeptical critique of the skeptic movement.t

My favorite game.

So, without further ado . .

I think the two difference between "skeptics" and "non-skeptics" are ultimately the following;

1. Philosophical; I think the difference between the two sides is more philosophical then the arguments themselves would indicate. Skeptics will try to argue their case with science showing homeopathy doesn't work or giving natural explanations to ghost experiences. But the difference runs deeper. I think before skeptics make the empirical arguments about the validity of this or of that, the focus should be on the philosophical debate. The "skeptic movement" seems to be a rationalist/philosophical naturalist one, and not everyone believes that scientific evidence is or should be the exclusive means to explain the world. Case in point; the many religious people who freely admit their beliefs are completely irrational, but disagree with the position that anything irrational should be disregarded.

I don’t think so. Homeopathy either does what is claims it does or it does not do what it claims it does. Ghosts either exists or ghosts do not exist. The claims of homeopathy or ghosts are necessarily true or false. Skeptics believe that the scientific method is the best means of determining the veracity of those claims. It is a “naturalist” philosophical approach because it is testing a claim of a “natural” phenomenon.

I think the confusion is in the term “explain” the world. You might have made a better case for your “case in point” by defining who those religious people are who admit their beliefs are irrational but disagrees that those irrational beliefs should be disregarded. However, I think I understand what you are saying.

Science cannot answer every question. Science tells us “how” things work. It gives us that truth. From that, we can predict how things will work, and can calculate how to change things to achieve certain results. But science does not tell us what results we should achieve—what accomplishments we should desire. Our creativity and humanity controls those desires. Science can guide us in our decisions by providing truth and knowledge of how things work and the chances of the consequences we will encounter by our choices, but the choices are our to make, whether those choices are “rational” or “irrational”.

The benefit of skepticism is not to control our desires or our pursuit of purposefulness or question for meaning, but to provide truths of knowledge upon which we can forge a basis for decisions on those matters and calculate a plan of action to bring them to fruition.

To me, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just as much if not more a fact of psychology than epistemology. "Extraordinary claim" is defined as something that, if true, would change drastically the paradigm with which "we" view the world. But different people have different paradigms. While gods are extraordinary to many of you, and to me as well, to the theist, the idea that all this emerged without a divine guidance is extraordinary, and require extraordinary evidence before they believe it, just like any skeptic.

That is true within that context. But the basics of science (and math) is to not start with a myriad of opposing ideas, each of which must be overcome with extraordinary evidence before moving on, but rather beginning with the very basics of our knowledge and working from there, step by laborious step, to see where we end up. The need for “extraordinary evidence” for an “extraordinary claim” is because the claim would tear down a large part of the pyramid of knowledge that has already been built up by stone after stone of evidence upon evidence. In other words, the current understanding of a thing is supported by “extraordinary evidence”, therefore a claim or belief that would be a more favorable alternative claim or belief would be an “extraordinary claim” and must present at least, or greater, “extraordinary evidence” to be a viable alternative.

I do agree with you that the phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” does have both a scientific and a psychological meaning. The scientific meaning is quite clear and is explained above. The psychological meaning is a bit more difficult to deal with. Humans are not completely rational, nor can they absolutely verify every belief before moving on to evaluating the next belief. If we did, we would be paralyzed with analyzing everything every second of every day. So we “accept” some beliefs as likely true or likely false without verifying. That’s how we work. That’s how we have work (at least on a day-by-day, second-by-second level). If we choose to question(be skeptical) of a belief, we can verify it by the means of the scientific method. Rather than just make a general assessment or educated guess, we can actual break down the question of veracity into distinct part, with controlled circumstances, and find out the actual truth. If we have belief that we vaguely “accepted” without scrutiny, then the evidence needed from our investigations would need to be “extraordinary” to the extent that it overrides all of the evidence that has been “accepted” for us to sustain that unscrutinized belief.

2. The difference between "skeptics" and "non-skeptics" is a sliding scale; where the non-skeptic's investigation ends (wikipedia), the skeptic's search has only just begun. Some skeptics might say something along the lines of "Cryptozoologists/creationists/conspiracy theorist/whatever believe based on ignorance whereas a skeptic only believes something based on evidence", but to many the presence of footprint casts, the eye, experiences of divine revelation, anomalies and "red flags" in historic events prove the sasquatch/ID/god/conspiracy. This seems like a really captainobvious statement, I know. But is proof defined as something that leaves no other possibility but one conclusion?

If so, aren't even strong evidence-based conclusions based on "How else could it be logically explained?" or some variation of that statement, like "This is true because I can't imagine how it could reasonably be anything otherwise"?

You are correct about the sliding scale. The is no absolute true or absolute false (at least not in the natural world). Everything is a sliding scale of a level of confidence. Pick up something off you desk. Hold it over the floor. Let it go. Did it drop to the floor? I bet it did. I have that belief because that is what happens over, and over, and over, and over again when someone lets go of something over a floor.

If it does not drop to the floor we have an issue. Why didn’t it fall to the floor. It was a ghost! An alien! A conspiracy! No. We just don’t know why it didn’t drop to the floor yet. Skeptics don’t invent things and then look for supporting evidence. If there is an unexplained phenomenon, then we invent hypothesis and test those. If the evidence supports the hypothesis, then we may create a theory. Perhaps that air vent on the floor has some cause? Let’s drop items with the air conditioning turned on and turned off. If the object always falls to the floor with the air off but never when on, then the air vent must be pushing up air to keep the object from falling. Reasonable hypothesis that might be supported by evidence.

When evidence is difficult or impossible to come by, we apply Occam's razor.

The conspiracy theorist tries to "prove" his theory with "how else do you explain this weird thing and that weird thing?" and "X is the only thing I can think of to explain it, therefore it does." These may be arguments from ignorance or arguments from lack of imagination, but couldn't scientific conclusions be described as "arguments from less ignorance" and "arguments from less lack of imagination". It seems like a sliding scale, so what of the line between satisfactory and unsatisfactory evidence. Is it a fine line? Is it fuzzy? How do I best identify it in the case of conspiracy theories and alternative medicine?

Arguments from less ignorance. Arguments from less lack of imagination. I like that. It seems right.

The line between satisfactory and unsatisfactory evidence can be fine or fuzzy, and it can be different for different people. In some cases it can be statistically quantified, in many cases it cannot. Usually there is at least a majority of evidence. But there are cases where the evidence rides a fine line. Politics is essentially devoted to resolving these questions. Should we raise property taxes and build a public recreation center, or keep property taxes low and not have a public recreation center? What’s best for the community? There are too many variables, both known and unknown, and objective and subjective, to really reach a scientific conclusion, but the more verified values we have in the equation, the better we can asses our decision.

For any belief we have a sliding scale somewhere between absolutely true and absolutely false. For those in the middle, we often have to decide one way or the other and the best balance wins (although it is not uncommon for irrational conclusions or unsupported evidence to weigh in on tipping that scale). But we must recognize that there are firmly held beliefs and loosely held beliefs. This goes back to “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. A firmly held belief is going to require much more contradictory evidence to upset the balance and chance the belief than a loosely held belief that does not already have a heavy weight of evidence support one or the other conclusion.

Finally, how are things in other galaxies like gamma ray bursts and black holes proven by the scientific method? Don't these things only have photos and recordings of anomalies?

Things can be proven by logic. If A, B, or C holds a red ball, and A and C do not hold a red ball, then we can conclude that B holds a red ball even without examining B. But I’m out of my league on the question beyond that, and you might want to post it in the “Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology” forum.

Thanks for your interesting questions.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Apologies for picking a small section of a long OP, but this is the only bit I really had a comment on.

Some skeptics might say something along the lines of "Cryptozoologists/creationists/conspiracy theorist/whatever believe based on ignorance whereas a skeptic only believes something based on evidence", but to many the presence of footprint casts, the eye, experiences of divine revelation, anomalies and "red flags" in historic events prove the sasquatch/ID/god/conspiracy.

The problem here, usually, is that the believer examines the evidence in the light of a preconceived belief, picks out whatever evidence can be rationalised as supporting their position, and ignores all the other evidence. This is certainly what we see in the conspiracy theorist; their approach to evidence is based on after-the-fact justification for rejecting the evidence that proves their beliefs to be incorrect, usually by adopting a more complex belief system that incorporates a means by which the contradictory evidence has been fabricated. This leads to Ryan Mackey's Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories (see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2323813#post2323813), which should be required reading for any student of the topic.

Dave

 

[Crocoshark]

Can you think of a reason why I should reconsider my postition?

Well first, I think I should word my position better and more to the point. I'm not sure "philosophical arguments" was the best way of putting it.

I think skeptics should focus less on stating that there's no scientific evidence for certain things and more on persuading people to make "scientific evidence" a deciding point of their beliefs and that natural explanations are inherently superior to supernatural ones. Skeptics already do this by talking about optical illusions, cognitive biases, etc. I just think it should be emphasized over the debunking more so then it is now. For all I know, maybe you already agree with this, I don't know. My post was directed more at the skeptic movement in general.

Multiple times I've heard religious people say how "rationalism isn't the only way to look at the world." and reprimanding the concept of dismissing something just because it has no evidence or because some scientists said so. Part of this is the distrust of science, which Carl Sagan gave a good amount of attention to in Demon-Haunted World. But part of it is also people seeing rationalism as one of many similarly valid world views. I think this is a hurdle that given relatively little attention by skeptics.

I think unscientific people can be made more scientifically minded. I know that watching science documentaries that explain how discoveries are made and theories proven has definitely done that before. Learning about what does and doen't prove a theory and similar things probably moved me further over to the scientific mindset then any foray into the skeptical movement I've ever had. I don't know how well it would work for other people, because they may have their religious beliefs compartmentalized different from mine, but science documentaries aren't necessarily the only method for making people more science-minded.

As for "People can't be reasoned out of something they weren't reasoned into." I don't know that reason and emotion are so separate; facts and logic can often cite emotion.

And if people can never, ever be dissuaded from beliefs they didn't accept on reason, what good is the skeptic movement then?

You might have made a better case for your “case in point” by defining who those religious people are who admit their beliefs are irrational but disagrees that those irrational beliefs should be disregarded.

I think a better wording of mine would've been "people who admit their beliefs have no testable evidence to support it"

I was actually trying to get the username Devil's Advocate when I registered. My plan was to have a series of threads who's purpose was just to play devil's advocate and that would be my persona on this board.

I COULD'VE just made an alteration of the name and registered as TheDevil's_Advocate or something, but I didn't think of it and if I did I'd just look like a sock account of you.

Nice to meet the original Devil's Advocate so quickly, thanks for the indepth reply

 

[bjornart]

Well first, I think I should word my position better and more to the point. I'm not sure "philosophical arguments" was the best way of putting it.

I think skeptics should focus less on stating that there's no scientific evidence for certain things and more on persuading people to make "scientific evidence" a deciding point of their beliefs and that natural explanations are inherently superior to supernatural ones. Skeptics already do this by talking about optical illusions, cognitive biases, etc. I just think it should be emphasized over the debunking more so then it is now. For all I know, maybe you already agree with this, I don't know. My post was directed more at the skeptic movement in general.

"We" already do this, but it is a very large and difficult task since people rarely come to debate their basic view of the universe and to paraphrase an earlier statement you can't reason someone out of believing unreason is a better view of the world.

Also despite your earlier statement that many believers agree there is no evidence, that's not what we observe. People keep arguing their bit of nonsense with flawed or forged evidence and the general public may not even be aware that something has actually been proven false.

 

[Crocoshark]

Also despite your earlier statement that many believers agree there is no evidence, that's not what we observe.

Both groups exist, I think, but I spoke too generally earlier. While my statement doesn't apply to homeopaths, bigfoot-hunters or conspiracy theories, I have seen it with religious people and those who believe in ghosts. My earlier description is found more with religious people, perhaps exclusively with people of spirit-world based beliefs. Also, by evidence I was referring to empirical evidence as opposed to personal evidence like personal experiences, something I should have clarified earlier

 

[bjornart]

Both groups exist, I think, but I spoke too generally earlier. While my statement doesn't apply to homeopaths, bigfoot-hunters or conspiracy theories, I have seen it with religious people and those who believe in ghosts. My earlier description is found more with religious people, perhaps exclusively with people of spirit-world based beliefs. Also, by evidence I was referring to empirical evidence as opposed to personal evidence like personal experiences, something I should have clarified earlier

Some religious people and quite a few believers in ghosts do consider themselves in possession of empirical evidence. And those who don't and consider their beliefs, which for some include homeopathy and sundry, outside of scientific inquiry, or who doubt the benefit of scientific inquiry in general are rarely receptive of reasoned arguments. They're a minority and generally lost causes. People who at least consider scientific evidence some of the time are a better target.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Hi, I'm new here. I'm a sort-of skeptic, a skeptical believer, a semi-skeptic, not quite on your bandwagon but supportive of your cause. I have a soft spot for SOME paranormal claims but wouldn't actually bet money on any of it. I signed up because I wanted to hear skeptics address some thoughts of mine, and I wanted to play a little devil's advocate, offer some skeptical critique of the skeptic movement. So, without further ado . .

I don't think so. I think you are firmly on the dark side (well, the dull side) with most people here. You don't think like a woo at all on the evidence of this post. Real DA's start with "I have discovered a perpetual quantum energy source..." and go on in that vein.

I think the two difference between "skeptics" and "non-skeptics" are ultimately the following;

1. Philosophical; I think the difference between the two sides is more philosophical then the arguments themselves would indicate. Skeptics will try to argue their case with science showing homeopathy doesn't work or giving natural explanations to ghost experiences. But the difference runs deeper. I think before skeptics make the empirical arguments about the validity of this or of that, the focus should be on the philosophical debate. The "skeptic movement" seems to be a rationalist/philosophical naturalist one, and not everyone believes that scientific evidence is or should be the exclusive means to explain the world. Case in point; the many religious people who freely admit their beliefs are completely irrational, but disagree with the position that anything irrational should be disregarded.

To me, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just as much if not more a fact of psychology than epistemology. "Extraordinary claim" is defined as something that, if true, would change drastically the paradigm with which "we" view the world. But different people have different paradigms. While gods are extraordinary to many of you, and to me as well, to the theist, the idea that all this emerged without a divine guidance is extraordinary, and require extraordinary evidence before they believe it, just like any skeptic.

This would be true if (a) We had any evidence for that god
and
(b) If we lacked 200+ years worth of accumulated evidence that the universe is rational, predictable and quantitative.
We have a stack of data on how things routinely are. Water does not flow uphill. People don't float in the air. We can tell a lot about the past, but little of the future. This is not scientific stuff. It's common observation.

Pretending there is no difference between the normal , the abnormal and the paranormal is just closing our eyes to the evidence. We can do that- but it gets us nowhere and it's no fun. The religious way was tried for millennia. It leads to dogmatism and inquisitions. I for one refuse to try it again in some misguided spirit of even handedness. Screw that nonsense. When you learn something doesn't work and you find something does work, you have to be a first class fool to go back to the old way.

The viewpoint that all worldviews are equally valid is a bit of nonsense spewed by postmodernists who happened to briefly dominate broadcasting.
All ways of making jet engines work are not equally valid. Anyone who thinks so is a fool. I don't think you believe this, Devil's Advocacy notwithstanding.

2. The difference between "skeptics" and "non-skeptics" is a sliding scale; where the non-skeptic's investigation ends (wikipedia), the skeptic's search has only just begun. Some skeptics might say something along the lines of "Cryptozoologists/creationists/conspiracy theorist/whatever believe based on ignorance whereas a skeptic only believes something based on evidence", but to many the presence of footprint casts, the eye, experiences of divine revelation, anomalies and "red flags" in historic events prove the sasquatch/ID/god/conspiracy. This seems like a really captainobvious statement, I know. But is proof defined as something that leaves no other possibility but one conclusion?

Bottom line- if we are to accept "Goddidit" arguments, then anything is equally possible- including the chance that you are god almighty testing our faith. Miracles happen. Scientific induction is an illusion. Antibiotics work by coincidence. This computer has a pixie in it. Once we accept one bit of nonsense, why stop?
We either reject that hypothesis as worthless, or we may as well all go for a beer and assume god will pay the bill.

If so, aren't even strong evidence-based conclusions based on "How else could it be logically explained?" or some variation of that statement, like "This is true because I can't imagine how it could reasonably be anything otherwise"?

Aren't they what?

The conspiracy theorist tries to "prove" his theory with "how else do you explain this weird thing and that weird thing?" and "X is the only thing I can think of to explain it, therefore it does." These may be arguments from ignorance or arguments from lack of imagination, but couldn't scientific conclusions be described as "arguments from less ignorance" and "arguments from less lack of imagination". It seems like a sliding scale, so what of the line between satisfactory and unsatisfactory evidence. Is it a fine line? Is it fuzzy? How do I best identify it in the case of conspiracy theories and alternative medicine?

By detailed analysis of the data, by the application of previously successful heuristics, by the study of human nature. Cui bono?

Finally, how are things in other galaxies like gamma ray bursts and black holes proven by the scientific method? Don't these things only have photos and recordings of anomalies?

Yes.
There's nothing magic about science. (That's rather the point). It's just common sense with notes. And as you say, photographs. Compare the number of photos of galaxies made in the last 50 years with the number of repeatable photos of fairies.
Which do you consider the stronger case?

There are assuredly ways to approach people which are better able to get a message across than simply shouting "You are wrong" at them. But let's not pretend they are not wrong. There is a universe out there. It does have rules and we know some of them to a reasonable approximation.

What we have learned includes the following:-
There are no fairies.
You can only wing it so long before reality bites your arse.
Whether gods exist or not, they don't answer prayers.
Placebos help, but antibiotics were better.
Antibiotics are not so good now. This is natural selection in action.


Now, how we get all this and more across is a moot question, but talking hogwash isn't it.
No matter how soft a spot you might have had for some paranormal claims, you won't bet money on them, because they are false and you know it.

The problem is, that lots of people- really decent, honest, fine people- don't.

 

[Cavemonster]

Hi, I'm new here. I'm a sort-of skeptic, a skeptical believer, a semi-skeptic, not quite on your bandwagon but supportive of your cause.

...

Hey Crocoshark, welcome to the forum!

I want to apologize if, especially in this first post, you feel like a cat toy being attacked and batted around.

There is a loong history of new posters showing up with "I'm not a skeptic, just wanted to ask questions about your views..." Who end up with "So why do you all deny Jesus Christ sinners!" pretty shortly afterwards. There is enough disingenuity that many regulars here have been trained to expect it. Myself, I try to give folks the benefit of the doubt, but I'm burned on that quite often.

As to your general point, that scientific evidence doesn't mean anything to someone who doesn't accept the value of evidence, that's absolutely correct. And if you lurk here a bit, you'll find lots of defense of empiricism and the scientific method. But we can only do so much of that, it's quite basic and gets boring fast. It would be like a ski forum explaining over and over again that skiing is going down a mountain with things strapped to your feet.

For your second point, skeptics and scientists think in terms of competing theories, not just evidence for one theory at a time. We also utilize parsimony, meaning we try to keep theories as simple as possible. If a theory describes a phenomena and makes predictions about it better than any competing theories, then it is accepted until a better one comes along.

There's obviously some room for personal preference in there, but that's in the details. When you have an extreme situation like "I saw a shadow outside my door, it must be a ghost!" you can very easily advance alternate theories with better explanatory and predictive power that follow parsimony much better as well.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Indeed. Welcome on board, Crocoshark. I echo Cavemonster's comments about new posters with agendas which don't align with their Opening Post. This has attracted more ...vehement... responses of late.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Crocoshark

Very interesting thread. Having typed several different responses and deleted them all, I'll just add that this forum is such an excellent place for rational thought. I think you'll agree.

 

[Jocce]

I think the two difference between "skeptics" and "non-skeptics" are ultimately the following;

1. Philosophical; I think the difference between the two sides is more philosophical then the arguments themselves would indicate. Skeptics will try to argue their case with science showing homeopathy doesn't work or giving natural explanations to ghost experiences.

Sceptics like to see objective evidence that homeopathy works and that ghosts exist. I don't care much if people believe in ghosts but homeopathy is a different issue where believers can do actual harm to both men and animals.

But the difference runs deeper. I think before skeptics make the empirical arguments about the validity of this or of that, the focus should be on the philosophical debate. The "skeptic movement" seems to be a rationalist/philosophical naturalist one, and not everyone believes that scientific evidence is or should be the exclusive means to explain the world

Scientific evidence doesn't explain the world but is presented to support a theory of how something works.

Case in point; the many religious people who freely admit their beliefs are completely irrational, but disagree with the position that anything irrational should be disregarded.

If you want to convince me or some other sceptic of the Truth(TM), then I demand evidence. I'm not going to take your word for it.

To me, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just as much if not more a fact of psychology than epistemology. "Extraordinary claim" is defined as something that, if true, would change drastically the paradigm with which "we" view the world. But different people have different paradigms. While gods are extraordinary to many of you, and to me as well, to the theist, the idea that all this emerged without a divine guidance is extraordinary, and require extraordinary evidence before they believe it, just like any skeptic.

The difference is that scientists has provided extraordinary evidence for the evolution of species.

2. The difference between "skeptics" and "non-skeptics" is a sliding scale; where the non-skeptic's investigation ends (wikipedia), the skeptic's search has only just begun. Some skeptics might say something along the lines of "Cryptozoologists/creationists/conspiracy theorist/whatever believe based on ignorance whereas a skeptic only believes something based on evidence", but to many the presence of footprint casts, the eye, experiences of divine revelation, anomalies and "red flags" in historic events prove the sasquatch/ID/god/conspiracy. This seems like a really captainobvious statement, I know. But is proof defined as something that leaves no other possibility but one conclusion?

Evidence is provided to support a theory of how something works.

If so, aren't even strong evidence-based conclusions based on "How else could it be logically explained?" or some variation of that statement, like "This is true because I can't imagine how it could reasonably be anything otherwise"?

It's easy. Either you have evidence, or you don't.

The conspiracy theorist tries to "prove" his theory with "how else do you explain this weird thing and that weird thing?" and "X is the only thing I can think of to explain it, therefore it does." These may be arguments from ignorance or arguments from lack of imagination, but couldn't scientific conclusions be described as "arguments from less ignorance" and "arguments from less lack of imagination". It seems like a sliding scale, so what of the line between satisfactory and unsatisfactory evidence. Is it a fine line? Is it fuzzy? How do I best identify it in the case of conspiracy theories and alternative medicine?

Examine the evidence. Very easy.

Finally, how are things in other galaxies like gamma ray bursts and black holes proven by the scientific method? Don't these things only have photos and recordings of anomalies?

Ehh...we have equipment to measure gamma ray bursts.

 

[Crocoshark]

I don't think so. I think you are firmly on the dark side (well, the dull side) with most people here. You don't think like a woo at all on the evidence of this post. Real DA's start with "I have discovered a perpetual quantum energy source..." and go on in that vein.

Would you prefer an introductory post laying out my beliefs on a bunch of pseudoscience topics in my next post on this topic, edited into the OP or as its own thread? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm perfectly happy to make one. I'd make one in the "welcome" thread and link it in the OP, but don't know to link to a specific post rather than a whole thread

This would be true if (a) We

I wasn't really talking about "we", but more about a subjective, person to person's opinion standpoint Being an atheist, I agree with you.

some misguided spirit of even handedness.

It crossed my mind writing my OP that this might be mistake for some sort of multicultural/post modernist thing I didn't put a disclaimer in the original post, so I suppose I'll do it now. The OP is not saying irrational beliefs have or should be given some sort of undeserved validity. I'm saying that to those who DO hold this view to some degree, we should devise ways of persuading them that rationalism is the best viewpoint. For all I know, this method could just be getting people to watch lots of science documentaries to condition them into a scientific mindset.

Bottom line- if we are to accept "Goddidit" arguments, then anything is equally possible- including the chance that you are god almighty testing our faith. Miracles happen. Scientific induction is an illusion. Antibiotics work by coincidence. This computer has a pixie in it. Once we accept one bit of nonsense, why stop?

Yes, true. Those examples are certainly irrational, except for the pixie one. Except they don't run computers they run blenders. And that is how we're going to get hold of PERPETUAL ENERGY

We either reject that hypothesis as worthless, or we may as well all go for a beer and assume god will pay the bill.

Hmmmmm, science . . . . . or beer? Science . . . beer . . . science . . . beer . . .



BEER!

Aren't they what?

I was trying to suggest that even scientific conclusions are arrived at based on ignorance of any better explanation, but it's an acceptably low level of ignorance, "educated ignorance" if that's not too strange a phrase. On the other end of the scale are arguments from ignorance like "I don't quite understand X, so it's a government fabrication" and the example you used, "goddidit". I was suggesting they are degrees of argument from ignorance.

By detailed analysis of the data, by the application of previously successful heuristics, by the study of human nature. Cui bono?

Yes, but my question was how you measure that the evidence is solid enough to accept a conclusion.

Compare the number of photos of galaxies made in the last 50 years with the number of repeatable photos of fairies.
Which do you consider the stronger case?

Not the best comparison. Galaxies are something almost anyone can observe almost any night if they have a telescope, fairies I can't even name two hoaxes alledging they exist (the cottingly fairies and __?). Nonetheless, I agree with your point.

Whether gods exist or not, they don't answer prayers.

Sure they do, they answer by making the person you're praying for suffer even more and take longer to heal. That's why I always pray for people to whither and die; reverse psychology!

No matter how soft a spot you might have had for some paranormal claims, you won't bet money on them

That's funny you use that wording 'cause that's exactly the wording I use to describe some of my unscientific beliefs; I kinda have a soft spot for them, but wouldn't bet money on any of them.

The problem is, that lots of people- really decent, honest, fine people- don't.

I think if we can just focus people on the "don't bet money on it" part. It's okay to softly believe in whatever as long as one doesn't base legal, political, medical, financial, relationship or other important decisions on them. At least not more than a 15-ish dollar ghost tour.