Debunking the debunkers

[Piggy]

It's my own system, so I'll use the terminology as I choose.

Indeed you will. But that doesn't mean it makes any sense.

I will defend it, because there are some things that skeptics should probably know: logical fallacies, how science works, that sort of thing.

Then why don't you know these things?

You claim that there is no such thing as an "appeal to authority" fallacy, when in fact there is. You defend your position by observing that it's possible to cite authorities correctly, which does nothing to support your position. You claim that science works by appeal to authority, which is incorrect.

Communities are entitled to define themselves

Yes, but if you want to define all skeptics by comparing their views to the platforms of a set of 5 organizations, that is another matter altogether.

I have long since chosen to spend more time advancing skepticism, and less time arguing about metaphysics.

Well, you won't get any argument from me there. Metaphysics is bunk.

I've discussed three strategies in this thread:

• educate them, so they stop making errors in front of non-skeptics that they can pounce on. eg: scientism, naturalistic fallacy, claiming that "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy
• identify those who are misbehaving and show them the door. They can proceed as self-appointed skeptics, but not under the banner of an organization. This creates plausible deniability.
• spend some time examining the reality of the participants, their motives, their methods, identify objectives, maybe see if there's a place for everybody. See if the methods actually achieve them by testing results. If not, change the approach to find what works. ie: the scientific method.

Yes, but each of these strategies is fatally flawed.

First, "appeal to authority" is indeed a fallacy.

Second, your definition of misbehaving seems to have, at least in part, the purpose of removing (showing the door to) a contingent which is inconvenient to you (or to your family). When skepticism is applied across the board, then belief based on faith has no place. People who wish to cling to their faith-based beliefs and also consider themselves skeptics should not be surprised when their irrational beliefs are pointed out as such -- because such people are part-time skeptics. In other words, they have no problem applying skeptical principles to other people's irrational beliefs, but contend that there should be special dispensation for their own. This is mere hypocracy.

Strategy 3 I can't even parse.

 

[Piggy]

And I showed that they were actually similar, and that your counterexample was poor, because all authority is 'earned' from past performance. Therefore, according to your earlier arguments, these weren't 'authority-based' systems after all, because the authorities have a history of perfomance that - in principle - 'speaks for itself'.

From where do you pull the notion that "all authority is earned from past performance"? That's demonstrably untrue. Authority can be taken at the point of a gun.

Appeal to authority is "X said it, X is the authority, therefore X is valid".

In the military, if a superior gives an order, that's the order, and that's what you do. (I understand that there are exceptions, but they are indeed exceptions. Normally, military command is not subject to the scrutiny of underlings.)

In the Catholic Church, dogma does not change until the leadership changes it. Even if the lower-downs petition for years, it is still up to the leadership to say yea or nay.

In science, it does not matter who makes the innovation. If it holds up, it holds up. In science, if an expert's new work is found to be flawed, then it fails.

But the reality is that the hierarchy in these organizations - science included - are not provided with the luxury of infinite time to review the reputation of every individual. The institution succeeds by assigning this task to a few people who are accountable, and everybody else accepts their results until further notice.

Yet this is still not an appeal to authority. It is still not an authoritarian system.

The only reason why provisional acceptance is given to peer reviewed work is that the system itself -- not the people in it -- provide sufficient checks to ensure that this provisional acceptance is merited.

Yes, experts are the ones who participate, because they are the qualified persons, but nothing is accepted on the basis that these people are authorities and therefore they are correct.

Yes, we trust that these people know what they're talking about and that they're not lying, but that is not because they are authorities. Is it because the protocol of science has been designed, and has developed, in such a way as to quickly weed out ignorance and fakery.

Again, it is the data that matter, and it is the system that is trusted. Experts are considered experts only to the extent that they show results within this system.

Appeal to authority is not "the way science works". And you are never going to demonstrate that it is, simply by pointing to the fact that some people are expert in their fields, or to the fact that the peer-review system is generally trustworthy and that it is not necessary for everyone to replicate every experiment in order to understand it.

 

[Piggy]

My challenge as somebody who wants to reverse this trend is to convince people that recognizing authorities is thinking for yourself.

Well, good luck with that. It makes no sense to me at all.

Seems to me, a better route is to teach people how to properly evaluate the bogus claims and separate them from the sensible ones. That is thinking for yourself.

Ignoring the experts is indeed folly. But deference to authority is simply another breed of folly. You seek to replace one brand of foolishness with another, and to call it sense.

If this alleged contingent of pseudoskeptics, who flock to alternative medicine because they distrust authority, were trained to think critically (that is, skeptically) and evaluate the claims on either side, they'd come to the correct conclusion.

Telling them, "These people are the real authorities, and those aren't" isn't going to get you anywhere, I can tell you right now.

ETA: For example, my advice to people who want to understand ID is to read the ID papers first. Don't go and read criticisms of ID and not read ID, otherwise you have no idea if the critics are correctly representing the other side. When you've read the ID people, then go and read the evolution theorists. Check out the sources and make up your own mind. That's thinking for yourself.

 

[RichardR]

Well, that *was* my point: the publication of textbooks does not involve hands-on validation of the claims. The publishers rely on authorities.

No, they trust the scientific method - they trust that someone performed the experiments.

Science relies on data - it doesn't matter if you're Stephen Hawking, if your data is flawed you are still wrong. No one said everyone had to perform every experiment themselves - that would be absurd. That doesn't equate to "science works by appeal to authority. That is just an absurd conclusion. This discussion is going in circles, and I'm not wasting any more time on it. I'll leave anyone reading this to decide for themselves if science works by appeals to authority or not.

 

[blutoski]

I see. Well, I'll just go back to the lab and tell my colleagues that they've been doing science the wrong way for the last four decades. In particular, my boss, who has developed two effective antiretrovirals against HIV, and shares a grant with me from the CCDC&P Center for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. "for doing science the wrong way," apparently.

I have found my time on the JREF forum less than productive, and over the last few weeks, especially so. I was particularly aghast when a poster asked for medical advice regarding the rape of a juvenile, and people actually thought this was an appropriate forum, and that anonymous advice was better than calling ****ing 911.

I will move on to more fertile ground, I suppose, and try to pick up a few people who want to light candles, as opposed to those gnostics who sit at their keyboards and curse the darkness.

 

[Limbo9]

I will move on to more fertile ground, I suppose, and try to pick up a few people who want to light candles, as opposed to those gnostics who sit at their keyboards and curse the darkness.

What a shame. On the off-chance that you are checking this thread, I would like to say that I salute you blutoski. If more skeptics were like you, this world would be a much better place. You are among the handful of skeptics I have respect for.

I certainly understand and share your frustration. I have started a few threads here, and quickly became so frustrated that I only occasionaly lurk here now. But I felt compelled to come forward and express my support. I hope you stick around.

 

[blutoski]

A parting thought, courtesy of Michael Shermer:

The Unlikeliest Cult In History

Relates to my earlier comments re: scientism, naturalistic fallacy, &c. Ultimately, the concern I have is that Skepticism certalinly has cult-like properties, and that the accusations of outsiders are sometimes valid, and should be examined objectively rather than responding with knee-jerk denials and rationalizations.

 

[Piggy]

Ultimately, the concern I have is that Skepticism certalinly has cult-like properties, and that the accusations of outsiders are sometimes valid, and should be examined objectively rather than responding with knee-jerk denials and rationalizations.

Btw, blutoski, I agree with many of your points.

I agree, for instance, that there are some folks in the skeptical community who don't bother to think things through.

And I agree that there are many in the skeptical community (certainly on this board) who jump to accusations of fallacy when none are warranted. (For example, claiming that any ad hominem point must be an ad hominem fallacy, or -- as you point out -- that any citation of authority is an appeal to authority fallacy.)

I only disagree with your assertions that there is no such thing as an appeal to authority fallacy and that appeal to authority is "how science works".

But I think we've both adequately expressed our views on those 2 issues, so might as well let that rest.

I certainly don't think you're entirely wrong about everything, though. Just wanted you to know that, fwiw.

Cheers -Piggy

 

[CapelDodger]

From the link:

Far from seeking rationalism, scepticism is increasingly a search for authority.

Nonsense.

Absolutely. A fundamental part of scepticism is questioning authority. Don't tell me, persuade me. Evidence and rational inference.

Tai Chi's pseudosceptics do exist; IDists )) and conspiracy buffs, for instance.

 

[CapelDodger]

Now, I'm proud to work for a highly rated and well respected institute that can be depended on to do a good job.

And you've a right to be proud of that. Your institution has chosen you (and kept you on) as someone who will not undermine its integrity or damage its reputation. Institutions can have pride, in a sense. The best institutions do have pride. Not arrogance - some of the worst have that.

Moving on to the general, I have respect for both Piggy and blutoski. I'm not going to pick through the whole thread, but I think it's an example of what Limbo9 finds disheartening. Too many threads descend into Spy v Spy exercises between [fill in any well-known pairing here] who should really be allies. I tend to abandon threads at that point, especially if one of the protaganists is me.

We can't do all the science, all the historical research, all the poring over White House memos to get the data we need to rationally consider any subject. To that extent we have to rely on "authorities", but we can at least establish why they're authoritative. If Beth (please excuse my presumption) gets an out-of-the-box result from a measurement she'll repeat it, and if it's apparently confirmed will alert colleagues to check her methods and equipment, and make their own measurements. She won't cry "Eureka!" and rush to publish a paper with a press-release before peer-review. That's the measure of the institution's authority, and it's something its scientists take very seriously.

So we question an authority, but if it can answer the question we move on from there.

 

[Cuddles]

Moving on to the general, I have respect for both Piggy and blutoski. I'm not going to pick through the whole thread, but I think it's an example of what Limbo9 finds disheartening. Too many threads descend into Spy v Spy exercises between [fill in any well-known pairing here] who should really be allies. I tend to abandon threads at that point, especially if one of the protaganists is me.

I second this.

On a different note, hooray for fellow South Walians.

 

[CapelDodger]

On a different note, hooray for fellow South Walians.

I made a sound choice when I settled here . Castles, mountains, singing, rugby ... what's not to like?

 

[Mashuna]

I made a sound choice when I settled here . Castles, mountains, singing, rugby ... what's not to like?

Well, it's not bad. Not nearly as nice as it is up here, in North Wales

 

[Cuddles]

Well, it's not bad. Not nearly as nice as it is up here, in North Wales

I'll admit that North Wales has better rivers, but unfortunately they also have nasty cameras that give out speeding tickets.

 

[Piggy]

Given the size of Wales, I'd think the North Walians and South Walians could wave to each other. How much difference could there be?

 

[Mashuna]

I'll admit that North Wales has better rivers, but unfortunately they also have nasty cameras that give out speeding tickets.

Very true - and in Brunstrum, a police chief who's obsessed with speeding fines.

Given the size of Wales, I'd think the North Walians and South Walians could wave to each other. How much difference could there be?

Well I only moved to North Wales a couple of years ago, from Manchester. So to me, your question translates as, "Mancunians and Liverpudlians could wave to each other, how much difference could there be?"

I'll refrain from actually giving an answer, but let's just say local rivalries seem all the more intense for being local. Who cares about what's going on hundreds or thousands of miles away, when there are people just up the road to have irrational differences with

 

[Piggy]

I'll refrain from actually giving an answer, but let's just say local rivalries seem all the more intense for being local. Who cares about what's going on hundreds or thousands of miles away, when there are people just up the road to have irrational differences with

Ah, yes. Same way round here. There are some major civic improvement projects (roads, a dam, a new reservoir and water processing plant) which have been delayed for years, at an enormous cost to everyone, because of petty disagreements between two villages which are literally across the creek from each other.

 

[Cuddles]

Given the size of Wales, I'd think the North Walians and South Walians could wave to each other. How much difference could there be?

It's actually quicker to get to London from Swansea than it is to get to North Wales. There are actually quite big differences between the Welsh spoken in the north and south, even basic things like numbers are different, although usually mutually understandable. We do make hand gestures at each other, but they're not waving.

 

[Mashuna]

Ah, yes. Same way round here. There are some major civic improvement projects (roads, a dam, a new reservoir and water processing plant) which have been delayed for years, at an enormous cost to everyone, because of petty disagreements between two villages which are literally across the creek from each other.

I enjoy banter at sporting events with rival fans, but I really find it hard to understand the vitriol that some people have for those who support the other team. It's as though the whole idea of sporting rivalry has become detatched, and spiralled out of control (having spent Sunday afternoon at Old Trafford).

To draw a parallell with the CT subforum, explosions != explosives.
Local pride != wanting neighbouring cities to fall into the sea (or at least, it shouldn't).

Anyway, sorry to derail the topic. I'll be back off to work now

 

[CapelDodger]

Given the size of Wales, I'd think the North Walians and South Walians could wave to each other. How much difference could there be?

I really shouldn't get started on this ...

The population of Wales is about 3m, of whom 2.5m live in the south-east, mostly in Newport, Cardiff, Swansea and Llanelli. There's a bunch more in the valleys just to the north. It's history is industrial and commercial, much of its population deriving from 19thCE immigration. The rest of the population is essentially traditional, Celtic and agricultural (tourism is big as well these days). The quickest ground-based way from South to North Wales is across to England, up to Shrewsbury or Chester, and back west. It may seem like a unit on the map, until you look at the geography.

North-East Wales is in Liverpool's hinterland. North-West Wales is frickin' weird, the last surviving market for woad. West and Central Wales is beautiful - a refuge from light-pollution, it's worth going there just for the night skies.

The terms "Wales" and "Welsh" come from the Saxon word for "foreigner" (in this case meaning "native"). It's where the Saxon irruption ran out of steam. It doesn't really define a "country".

Hope that's food for thought ...