Compassionate skepticism?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Criticism is of course useful, but a dogmatic adherence to a given set of beliefs about the world which are held on tenaciously despite all evidence and reason to the contrary, is not something which is to be applauded. The word skepticism and what it is to be a skeptic has shifted meaning in recent times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Certainly it has. The in-context meaning of "skepticism" in this forum refers to scientific skepticism, not philosophical skepticism.

I embrace the former but have little patience with the latter.

Well subjective idealism has been described as skepticism run riot. Since I subscribe to it, and the skepticism on here is so-called "scientific skepticism", then it seems my position is the absolute opposite to yours. Namely i am a so-called "philosophical skeptic" but not a "scientific skeptic".

But it seems to be "scientific skepticism" is a blatant oxymoron in any case. If you were a thoroughgoing skeptic, you would never accept any scientific evidence for anything, ever. So I have to confess that I do not understand what it means for you to describe your "skepticism" as scientific skepticism.

In particular, I do not see how you have addressed my observation which I shall paste in again:

"Criticism is of course useful, but a dogmatic adherence to a given set of beliefs about the world which are held on tenaciously despite all evidence and reason to the contrary, is not something which is to be applauded".

 

[epepke]

Well subjective idealism has been described as skepticism run riot. Since I subscribe to it, and the skepticism on here is so-called "scientific skepticism", then it seems my position is the absolute opposite to yours. Namely i am a so-called "philosophical skeptic" but not a "scientific skeptic".

Fair enough. Except that there are things, such as immaterialism, that you don't seem so skeptical of, if at all.

But it seems to be "scientific skepticism" is a blatant oxymoron in any case.

Except that "scientific skepticism" is shorthand not for "skepticism that is scientific" but "skepticism of claims presented as scientific." Which includes both skepticism of scientific claims and skepticism of pseudoscientific claims; it's not always so easy to tell the difference.

 

[BillHoyt]

But it seems to be "scientific skepticism" is a blatant oxymoron in any case. If you were a thoroughgoing skeptic, you would never accept any scientific evidence for anything, ever. So I have to confess that I do not understand what it means for you to describe your "skepticism" as scientific skepticism.

Let's see now. It has been strongly suggested by several posters that you are blurring two different definitions of skepticism. Then you simply repeat your earlier comments, once again mangling them. How does this further rational discourse?

In particular, I do not see how you have addressed my observation which I shall paste in again:

"Criticism is of course useful, but a dogmatic adherence to a given set of beliefs about the world which are held on tenaciously despite all evidence and reason to the contrary, is not something which is to be applauded".

Ian, I guarantee you that if you can marshall actual evidence here and use sound, irrefutable logic here, you will change minds. But first you need to recognize the need for the standards of evidence espoused by scientists and skeptics and you need to recognize the reality of the fallacies you constantly slip on.

 

[Clancie]

A short definition, from Wikipedia

Philosophic skepticism - a philosophical position in which people choose to critically examine whether the knowledge and perceptions that they have are actually true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have true knowledge

Scientific skepticism - a scientific, or practical, position in which one does not accept the veracity of claims until solid evidence is produced in accordance with the scientific method.

Like Ian, I consider myself a philosophic skeptic.

Posted by BillHoyt

I guarantee you that if you can marshall actual evidence here and use sound, irrefutable logic here, you will change minds. But first you need to recognize the need for the standards of evidence espoused by scientists and skeptics

Not all "skeptics" require laboratory testing to discuss possibilities, Bill, (i.e. not "claims").

And, a question: If there is mountains of anecdotal evidence for a paranormal phenomena, but it is arguably not testable, would you regard the phenomena as therefore being untrue or would you regard it instead with doubt?

 

[apoger]

Not all "skeptics" require laboratory testing to discuss possibilities, Bill, (i.e. not "claims").

Not all? I'd say close to zero.
Who requires anything for discussion?

And, a question: If there is mountains of anecdotal evidence for a paranormal phenomena, but it is arguably not testable, would you regard the phenomena as therefore being untrue or would you regard it instead with doubt?

A devotee of science/skepticism should never use the term "untrue" in the context of evidence. There is always doubt, as evidence is never absolute.

Anecdotal evidence can offer us an indication of what may be profitable to test. It has little value beyond that.

If the phenomena is not testable, then the credibility of the evidence will remain weak.