Debunking the debunkers

[blutoski]

It is best to be honest about the fact that naturalistic theory has all the evidence on its side, and competing theories should have to pony up before being taken seriously. To become agnostic on the basis of a door popping open... that's just silly.

I wasn't expressing agnosticism. I was saying "I don't know".

Later, I came to the conclusion that it was most likely jarred open by cats. I was able to repeat the event fairly convincingly. The 'draft' explanation was just plain embarassing.

 

[blutoski]

I dunno. Who's your sister?

Well, it sounds like you assign different people different levels of authority on certain subjects. What am I missing?

 

[Piggy]

Here's an interesting bit from the Pseudoskeptic Wiki link:

In a work published by Prometheus Books in 1990, skeptic John Schumaker argued that extreme skepticism of the paranormal and/or religious beliefs can actually have detrimental psychological consequences. He claimed that many of his skeptical friends had had some difficulty adjusting to society and that hard-line skeptics appear to be more susceptible to certain mental disorders than the population at large.

My reaction is, ok, but that's not any sort of evidence that reasoned rejection of paranormal and religious claims is incorrect.

Yes, it's difficult adjusting to society when the vast majority of people believe in total nonsense. There are consequences, and it can lead to alienation and depression, whether one simply removes oneself from the company of the gullible, or tries to fake it and bite one's tongue.

There is no reason not to have an attitude of "extreme skepticism" toward claims which have proven to be bogus. "Extreme skepticism" toward psi and religion is no more pathological than "extreme skepticism" toward flat earth, 9/11 conspiracy theories, cosmic ether, phlogiston, or spontaneous generation. It's the overwhelming irrationality of the bulk of humanity that causes problems for people who have sense enough to put aside their biological tendencies toward believing in nonsense and take a good hard look at things.

 

[Piggy]

Well, it sounds like you assign different people different levels of authority on certain subjects. What am I missing?

You haven't told me who your sister is. Does she work in the field? I can't tell you how I'd value her opinion relative to Gould until I know what her background is.

 

[Piggy]

I wasn't expressing agnosticism. I was saying "I don't know".

Is that some kind of joke?

 

[Piggy]

Again: which peer-revieweres and laymen? Surely, you haven't personally repeated every experiment you've accepted? You must have said: "JAMA has a good reputation for peer review, so I will weigh these findings higher than if it was published in Betty&Veronica Double Digest."

And while some laypeople are appropriate authorities, I would say they have often earned it through their past performance, and that I weigh their opinions higher than other laypeople because I respect them now as an authority on this subject.

Right, so let's be clear about this. It's not an appeal to authority per se. It's not a case of "the Pope said it, so it's dogma" or "Aristotle said it, so it's sound" or "Bush said it, so patriotic Americans should believe it." Authority is granted only on the basis of results, and checks. So it's a matter of weighing the results and the level of validating checks, not any sort of appeal to authority.

When I read Gould, I don't believe anything he's saying because he's Gould. I evaluate it myself, I read what others have to say.

 

[blutoski]

Here's an interesting bit from the Pseudoskeptic Wiki link:



My reaction is, ok, but that's not any sort of evidence that reasoned rejection of paranormal and religious claims is incorrect.

Yes, it's difficult adjusting to society when the vast majority of people believe in total nonsense. There are consequences, and it can lead to alienation and depression, whether one simply removes oneself from the company of the gullible, or tries to fake it and bite one's tongue.

There is no reason not to have an attitude of "extreme skepticism" toward claims which have proven to be bogus. "Extreme skepticism" toward psi and religion is no more pathological than "extreme skepticism" toward flat earth, 9/11 conspiracy theories, cosmic ether, phlogiston, or spontaneous generation. It's the overwhelming irrationality of the bulk of humanity that causes problems for people who have sense enough to put aside their biological tendencies toward believing in nonsense and take a good hard look at things.

I think there's something different, though. One of the things I want to pursue when I return to university is the relationship between skepticism and personality disorders. I am of the opinion that OCPD is disproportionately represented within the movement. This is a very socially disabling condition, and is linked to clinical depression and career problems.

There's a whole spectrum of course, but there's that group I regard as 'an element' within the skeptical community who are causing incredible problems for the rest of us who actually have real-world goals.

 

[Piggy]

I am of the opinion that OCPD is disproportionately represented within the movement.

I wouldn't be surprised. Some of the most interesting results lately have indicated that OCD may stem from chronic firings of the brain systems which perform functions such as reminding us that we've forgotten to turn off the coffee pot.

I used to have to check doors and windows repeatedly, and check my alarm setting again and again, even though I knew I'd done these things. But I couldn't rest til I did them again. I had to satisfy the jones.

Fortunately, that problem doesn't plague me anymore. But I'm still chronically depressed.

In any case, it shouldn't be surprising that a good number of people wind up being skeptics whose brains are continually signalling "Are you sure? Are you sure? Have you checked? Are you sure?"

 

[blutoski]

Right, so let's be clear about this. It's not an appeal to authority per se. It's not a case of "the Pope said it, so it's dogma" or "Aristotle said it, so it's sound" or "Bush said it, so patriotic Americans should believe it." Authority is granted only on the basis of results, and checks. So it's a matter of weighing the results and the level of validating checks, not any sort of appeal to authority.

Recall: "appeal to authority" is not a logical fallacy. This is a huge, huge, misunderstanding within lay skepticism, and actually one sign of pseudoskepticism. The fallacy is "appeal to questionable authority."

"Appeal to authority" is how science works, and is therefore aligned with skeptical thinking.

When I read Gould, I don't believe anything he's saying because he's Gould. I evaluate it myself, I read what others have to say.

Mm. Still, though, I'm pretty sure you weigh it more than nonprofessionals. I'm somehow doubtful that you're reading Gish, for example, as one of those 'others,' on account of you probably don't trust anything he says about Gould.

 

[blutoski]

I wouldn't be surprised. Some of the most interesting results lately have indicated that OCD may stem from chronic firings of the brain systems which perform functions such as reminding us that we've forgotten to turn off the coffee pot.

I used to have to check doors and windows repeatedly, and check my alarm setting again and again, even though I knew I'd done these things. But I couldn't rest til I did them again. I had to satisfy the jones.

Fortunately, that problem doesn't plague me anymore. But I'm still chronically depressed.

In any case, it shouldn't be surprising that a good number of people wind up being skeptics whose brains are continually signalling "Are you sure? Are you sure? Have you checked? Are you sure?"

I think there was a misunderstanding. I said OCPD, not OCD. They're completely different.

Added: Wikipedia OCPD

 

[Piggy]

Recall: "appeal to authority" is not a logical fallacy. This is a huge, huge, misunderstanding within lay skepticism, and actually one sign of pseudoskepticism. The fallacy is "appeal to questionable authority."

"Appeal to authority" is how science works, and is therefore aligned with skeptical thinking.

You're just wrong. Science does not work by appeal to authority.

And what the hell is "lay skepticism". Is there a pro circuit?

 

[Piggy]

Mm. Still, though, I'm pretty sure you weigh it more than nonprofessionals. I'm somehow doubtful that you're reading Gish, for example, as one of those 'others,' on account of you probably don't trust anything he says about Gould.

Not quite. You're missing a step. The reason I don't trust Gould is that he lies, distorts, and makes repeated logical errors. What he produces is bunk. I don't trust bunk, whether it comes from Gish or anyone else.

But like my grandfather said, if the Devil himself says two and two are four, it's still true.

 

[Piggy]

I said OCPD, not OCD. They're completely different.

Thanks.

 

[blutoski]

You're just wrong. Science does not work by appeal to authority.

We'll have to disagree on this. I mean, there are other elements, of course, but as a method of thinking, division of labour and accumulation of experience and knowledge to create specialized authorities is instrumental in the development of the scientific model.

And what the hell is "lay skepticism". Is there a pro circuit?

Yes. Shermer comes to mind, obviously. Randi. Nickell, Hyman. I'd put Eugenie Scott in that category, too. Dawkins maybe. Grothe. Dr. Hall maybe. That's just off the top of my head. Bill Bennetta.

Richard - the OPer for this very thread - does skeptical education for a living, IIRC.

 

[blutoski]

And what the hell is "lay skepticism". Is there a pro circuit?

Bad choice of words, mabye. I guess what I meant by that was skeptics who don't know much about actual skepticism, but want to get right into it.

One thing that draws them into the sphere of organized skepticism is the appeal of shedding their old authorities (often religious education) or a general iconoclasm.

However, skepticism is joined at the hip to two other movements/concepts: Humanist moral philosophy and the epistemology of Scientific Naturalism. Arguably, it's closer to SN than Humanism when exercised.

What takes time for some of the newer skeptics to absorb - and some never do - is that they are not shedding the need for trust and uncertainty; they may even have to embrace these things, but with more satisfactory and rigourous reasons.

 

[blutoski]

Thanks.

The key presentment is this one:

* Showing perfectionism that interferes with task completion

I frequently see these pseudoskeptics so obsessed with having to close the circle on an investigation or debate - ostensibly to educate others on how science has all the answers - that they make scientists and skeptics look like complete nutjobs, which makes a real uphill battle in several ways.

 

[davidsmith73]

What debate is that?

Maybe you're referring here to the "controversy" in the popular press, analogous to the "controversy" over evolution/ID?

As far as I know, there's no scientific debate, because there are no valid studies showing any evidence of psi, and no theories whatsoever to explain it. (The latter is not surprising, given the former.)

Well, I think there are valid studies showing evidence of psi. The real debate is over the evidence and the experimental demonstration of sceptical arguments. Its very easy to say there is no evidence for psi while not presenting reasons why you think all the successful experiments are not valid. That would take far too much time, of course. And there are theories that are used in an attempt to explain some aspects of the phenomena.

 

[Araneus]

You're just wrong. Science does not work by appeal to authority.

I think there is confusion over what different people mean by "science" in this context.

The scientific method, i.e. the idealised mechanism for investigating evidence to understand the underlying truth, does not make any appeals to authority.

The individual's understanding of science, on the other hand, relies quite heavily on authorities, in that the individual tends to lack the necessary knowledge or resources to investigate each scientific theory for himself.

 

[Zep]

Well, I think there are valid studies showing evidence of psi.

...which we would be pleased if you produced or even just referenced for us here in some way.

The real debate is over the evidence and the experimental demonstration of sceptical arguments. Its very easy to say there is no evidence for psi while not presenting reasons why you think all the successful experiments are not valid. That would take far too much time, of course. And there are theories that are used in an attempt to explain some aspects of the phenomena.

Wild and extraordinarily fanciful theories, usually, not even with any shred of logical persuasion to them when examined closely.

However, relating back to the above discussion, these theories are indeed NOT examined closely by most people. And the patina of "scientific authority" that goes with the propounders of such nonsense is all that is necessary for them to be carried forward as "plausible scientific evidence", to the plaudits of their sponsors.

The skeptics, in such cases, feel very much like the honest little boy in the story of the emperor's new clothes - scared, but determined to call it as it really is.

 

[Piggy]

Yes. Shermer comes to mind, obviously. Randi. Nickell, Hyman. I'd put Eugenie Scott in that category, too. Dawkins maybe. Grothe. Dr. Hall maybe. That's just off the top of my head. Bill Bennetta.

Authors, conjurers, scientists. Who are also skeptics. I just don't buy your "lay skepticism" category. (And why choose the religious term rather than "amateur" anyway?)

Skepticism is skepticism. It's not some professional or academic discipline that requires a degree.

Get real.