A critique of skepticism

[epepke]

Based on my limited experiences here, I expect this thread to die a quick and mostly unremarkable death of quiet dismissal, punctuated, perhaps, by a few posts that will build on these ideas, as well as by posts laced with jabs that will have the effect of poisoning rational discussion rather than nurturing it.

FWIW, I find this refreshing, and it has helped me clarify my objections in another thread.

 

[stupidquestion]

There's certainly validity in the overall points here as I understand them, i.e., that an aggressive intellectualism, especially when pitted against a perceived group of "others," can stifle emotional introspection. I've never been comfortable with Randi's "brights" vs. "woos" pigeonholing. It's possible that our physical thresholds of sensation and comprehension might bar us from perceiving various other realities. (Just think what simple telescopes and microscopes did for us.) And surely personality and personal history inform our beliefs to varying degrees (hopefully with some perspective retained).

All the same, your specific conclusions about the nature of atheism and agnosticism seem far too generic and ill-defined. I don't believe it applies to me, and I find it hard to imagine it could apply to all holders of those philosophies. You also use some terms such as "ego" with a sense of objective reality, though they are philosophical/scientific concepts that are still widely debated. And in my thinking, your "hypothesis" is not one because it is untestable.

That, to me, is the usefulness of skepticism--a tool for exploring (not merely bashing) the unfamiliar, including the unfamiliar inside ourselves. And a necessary tool, because we obviously can fool ourselves, be lied to and have misunderstandings. That, of course, is the point of discussions like these.

 

[Q-Source]

Very interesting post, nosho.

Many people who consider themselves skeptics have hijacked real skepticism. They proudly call themselves "brights" without noticing that they have just become blind fanatics, acting aggressively to anyone that threatens their belief system.
They have lost (if ever had) the ability to use skepticism as a tool and question everything, including their own beliefs and preconceptions. It doesn´t apply only to the notion of a personal god and the paranormal -which they find an easy target- but to everything, including basic assumptions about the universe.
On the other hand, I think that true skepticism can never die, there will always be people who think out of the box, not only scientists, but philosophers, free thinkers, engineers, etc. Those are the ones who make progress.
Belem

 

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

Which points do you find great? Who are these people you are talking about? Can we have names? Or do you prefer to accuse people without naming them?

No, the questions are not on a list, so there's no excuse to run away from them.

 

[Dancing David]

Fine post nosho!

snip

This approach to inquiry that we call "skepticism" can be a wonderful instrument. At its core is a noble intention, namely, to try to observe reality as it is, to dispel delusion, to reach out for truth.

I view it as a way of seperating belief from knowledge, whatever that means. I don't believe that truth truely exists for humans. We can decide which thought models most acurately predict observed events, but that is about it.

snip

Pressure. This is the degree to which one believes or disbelieves. For example, many skeptics approach the notion of god with a certain measure of disbelief. But it's also possible to imagine subjects that one can approach with less overt disbelief. It's also possible to imagine subjects we might approach with a certain level of provisional belief, but to which we wish to apply skeptical criticism out of a sense of self honesty. We dial the pressure gauge up and down along a continuum that ranges from total non-acceptance to provisional disbelief, to provisional belief, to total acceptance. The midpoint along this continuum is a state of neither belief nor disbelief, a detachment with regard to belief. In some cases, it might seem impossible for us to control whether or not we believe.

This is very true, I would however call it something elese like, does it agree with our own personal beliefs?

And there are many here who use scepticism only to support thier beliefs and not to examine thier own beliefs criticaly.

Clarity. The degree to which one hopes for truth. Does one hope to reach a conclusion that supports expectations? Is there a reluctance to let go of preconceived notions? Does one's inquiry contain a hint of hostility toward the subject of inquiry? Even overt hostility? Is there an agenda? When we have an agenda, our skepticism is clouded by our own ego, and clarity is low. We can dial up the clarity of our skepticism by loosening our grip on what we hope is true, and by disengaging from ego issues and ego attacks, which appear in abundance in Randi's commentary and here in the forum.

Very true, so this is the gauge of how e are willing to approach our own beliefs with critical thought.

Intensity. The degree to which one wants to subject something to scrutiny. Is the subject a belief one would rather not examine? Or something too trivial or unimportant to consider? Is our heart really in it? Some things naturally seem to demand little or no skepticism. But this is always a judgment call, and we dial the intensity of our skepticism up and down by personal choice and preference. At maximum intensity, skepticism might resemble paranoia. At minimum intensity, skepticism is watered down with credulity.

Another gauge similar to pressure, and part of it, how hard do we want to defend our beliefs without examining them?

Scope. The degree to which one believes skepticism is appropriate for a given subject. We do not apply skepticism to absolutely everything. Some things we choose to accept, because they appear to be most likely credible. But this also is always a judgment call. We have to recognize that before we even begin to use our instrument of skepticism, we first make a personal judgment about whether the subject falls within the scope of what we believe constitutes an area that warrants skepticism.

Something I don't agree with, all matters involving humans should be subject to scpeticism, there are many things thatw e mistake for perception that our beliefs, especialy when it comes to judging the behavior of other humans.

Saturation. The degree to which we thoroughly explore a subject. Do we give it a light consideration and then dismiss it? Or do we look deeply, with care, with true interest? Do we respect the subject enough to exert our most honest effort? Or do we do a half-hearted job? Do we follow through? On subjects that affect our ego, we might choose to set the saturation level very low. Maybe in the past, we have told close friends that anyone who practices yoga is an idiot. So now, as we hear more about the benefits of yoga, our skepticism might be quick and curt, because we have dialed down the saturation level as a method of protecting our own ego. A low saturation setting often results in straw-man attacks.

Makes sense as long as we criticaly examine how our knowledge is arrived at.

snip


Hypothetically, let's pretend for a moment that there is some "thing" beyond our experiences and ideas but simultaneously at the very core of our being, some "thing" that is the very source of who we are, some "thing" that we also share in common with everybody else. But "thing" is not even the right word, because it's not a thing. Or, more precisely, it's neither a "thing" nor not a "thing." Just pretend for a moment. It's at your core. And it's at the core of everyone else. And we all share it.

Imagine that people have no idea how to talk about this "thing." Imagine that it's beyond our skills of language to describe adequately. Some people might call it "god." Others might call it self, or non-self, or nirvana, or noumenon, or love.

Imagine that this "thing" is not something that can be measured, or even defined with language. But imagine that it is in fact something that can be touched within oneself. Imagine that direct experience is possible. And imagine that authentic self-knowledge is not truly possible otherwise.

Imagine that there is evidence for this "thing," but the only way to find it is in oneself. A personal experience of this "thing" will never be scientific proof for anyone but oneself. But imagine that such an experience is, in fact, possible and real, not just imaginary.

That's the hypothesis. Now apply skepticism to it.

snip

The are words that are in useage to describe interior events and there are ways of gauging the experiences of humans as objective events, but even in psychology there is a wide latitude of what constitutes reality. I am a behavioral materialist, there are those who believe in qualia, I think that I am critical, they think that I use language improperly.
The issue is that most people who want to fill thier lives with the spiritual experience do not want to apply critical thinking to the vents so they wallow in self delusion and never effectively interact with the experience.

And agnosticism, the notion that we do not have the capacity to know whether god exists, can signal that we should examine our "scope" dial or our "saturation" dial.

I am not usre I agree with your definition of agnosticism, agnosis says that there may be areas in which we do not have knowledge, not that we are incapable of that knowledge.
Agnosis is the idea that there is not sufficient knowledge to make an informed choice.

 

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

Which points do you find great? Who are these people you are talking about? Can we have names? Or do you prefer to accuse people without naming them?

No, the questions are not on a list, so there's no excuse to run away from them.

 

[Tricky]

Based on my limited experiences here, I expect this thread to die a quick and mostly unremarkable death of quiet dismissal, punctuated, perhaps, by a few posts that will build on these ideas, as well as by posts laced with jabs that will have the effect of poisoning rational discussion rather than nurturing it.

The thread might do quite well if the person initiating it would come back and discuss some of the points that have been raised. You see, a lot of us here have been around a while and (surprise surprise) these topics arise with some regularity. But we really don't mind discussing them again with a newbie who is interested. But based on you input so far, you don't seem to be all that interested.

If you want this to be a discussion, then you need to discuss. Don't be a no-show.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Which points do you find great? Who are these people you are talking about? Can we have names? Or do you prefer to accuse people without naming them?

I made my point.

You are entitled to disagree with it, as usual, and you might realize that listing bully questions horizontally is not really different than listing them vertically and numbering them.

 

[CFLarsen]

I made my point.

All you did was raise doubt about the work of skeptics without ever pointing out just what it was you had problems with, as well as accusing a "few members of organized skeptical movements and organizations riding the coat-tails of science to try and gain status from that- some even going as far as calling skepticism science", without ever having the guts to actually name them.

That's your "point"?

You are entitled to disagree with it, as usual, and you might realize that listing bully questions horizontally is not really different than listing them vertically and numbering them.

So, it doesn't matter in what form questions to you takes, you will ignore them.

Good to know.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I've said all I have to say to you on that point.

If I'd care to list specific names, organizations, etc., I'd have done that. But please, don't pretend to be able to tell me what do, or what I should do.

Thanks.

 

[CFLarsen]

I've said all I have to say to you on that point.

If I'd care to list specific names, organizations, etc., I'd have done that. But please, don't pretend to be able to tell me what do, or what I should do.

Thanks.

"If I'd care".

So, you think it is OK - commendable, even - to accuse skeptics and skeptical organizations of wrongdoing, but can't actually step up to the plate and name them.

 

[T'ai Chi]

So, you think it is OK - commendable, even - to accuse skeptics and skeptical organizations of wrongdoing, but can't actually step up to the plate and name them.

One has to have an active imagination to believe I am accusing one of "wrongdoing". I wasn't aware I threaten the insecure that much.

 

[CFLarsen]

One has to have an active imagination to believe I am accusing one of "wrongdoing". I wasn't aware I threaten the insecure that much.

The main problem I observe is a few members of organized skeptical movements and organizations riding the coat-tails of science to try and gain status from that- some even going as far as calling skepticism science.

That's an accusation.

But, as you have made abundantly clear, you do not back up your accusations with evidence. Or, even have the guts to name those you accuse.

 

[Mojo]

...some even going as far as calling skepticism science.

Scepticism is certainly a tool of science. If a theory doesn't fit the evidence, the theory is wrong.

 

[Iacchus]

Expect the unexpected? ... The truth is stranger than fiction? ... Maybe this is why I'm not a skeptic? ... Except of certain skeptics of course.

 

[T'ai Chi]

That's an accusation.

But, as you have made abundantly clear, you do not back up your accusations with evidence. Or, even have the guts to name those you accuse.

You've mentioned your opinion already.

To no effect, as before.

 

[CFLarsen]

You've mentioned your opinion already.

To no effect, as before.

It's a fact, T'ai.

You do not back up your accusations with evidence.

You do not have the guts to name those you accuse.

 

[Iacchus]

Sometimes in order to experience new things, it's necessary to undergo certain changes in order to accomodate them. Might I suggest that this is part of the problem with understanding who God is? So, when we draw the line and demand that God prove Himself to us right here on the spot, could it be that we're going about it in the wrong way? Why should God concede anything to anyone who won't even aknowledge the possibility that He might exist? Perhaps we should just leave it as an open question and wait and see what happens? Perhaps this is all the faith that is required in oder for Him to reveal Himself to us?

 

[cyborg]

Why should God concede anything to anyone who won't even aknowledge the possibility that He might exist?

Conceed which god concept might exist?

 

[T'ai Chi]

It's a fact, T'ai.

You do not back up your accusations with evidence.

You do not have the guts to name those you accuse.

You've mentioned your disagreement already, nothing new.

The Winter olympics are on. Will we see you competing on the Danish team in the 1500m Bicker?