False skeptic dogma?: "Always open to new evidence"

[Piggy]

In the June JREF Newsletter, Jeff Wagg recaps a tenet widely accepted among skeptics: "Disbelief is fine, even advisable, but one must hold out the possibility that new evidence will be presented".

In other words, we stop short of saying that any unproven claim is definitively false. We say we do not believe that it is true, but we also say that we are open to any new evidence that may be presented on its behalf.

Jeff's in very good company as he writes this. It's a wider application of Sagan's "dragon in the garage", applied to skeptical inquiry rather than specifically scientific inquiry.

Nevertheless, I don't agree.

I don't agree that we should be open to new evidence in every case, and I don't agree that we actually are, no matter what we may say.

Most of the time, yes, we're open to new evidence. But to make it universally and eternally mandatory?

If you do that, in effect you're saying that we can never come to a definitive conclusion. And that's a pretty big claim.

To me, the "open to new evidence" (ONE) rule qualifies as mere accepted wisdom.

We are expected to withhold a definitive conclusion, to accept that there is a chance that some new evidence will rally to the cause:

1. In every case;
2. Before knowing the facts of the case;
3. Without a reasonable explanation of why it should be that definitive conclusions cannot, as a category, be reached.

It's easy for us to say that we're open to new evidence of, oh... geocentrism, a flat earth, leprechauns -- but we can do that with utter confidence that none will be forthcoming, and anything offered will be bunk.

So it costs us nothing.

But if I said that I thought for one second that any of those things had a chance of being real, I'd be lying. And I'd be willing to bet I'm not alone.

We know those things aren't part of the real world. Let's just fess up about that.

The reason I bring it up is threefold.

First, I just want to get it off my chest.

Second, I hate to see a false dogma become the norm among skeptics.

Finally, I want to hear what others have to say.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right but in the minority, maybe there are more folks out there who think like me than I suspect.

Anyway, that's what I think about that.

 

[JoeEllison]

Not just any "new evidence", but maybe new kinds of evidence, or a higher and more reliable degree of evidence. If a million unsupported anecdotes aren't worth anything, then the next anecdote after that isn't going to advance our knowledge either. For most things, we should show the same unwillingness to accept more of the same non-evidence for consideration. If someone's got something to show us that's concrete, we should maybe give it some attention.

 

[Slimething]

Well, there's always the option of walking away. Unless it's what you do for a living, I don't believe we're duty bound to debunk whatever new evidence is presented. Who has the time?

 

[Piggy]

Not just any "new evidence", but maybe new kinds of evidence, or a higher and more reliable degree of evidence. If a million unsupported anecdotes aren't worth anything, then the next anecdote after that isn't going to advance our knowledge either. For most things, we should show the same unwillingness to accept more of the same non-evidence for consideration. If someone's got something to show us that's concrete, we should maybe give it some attention.

Some claims are just false. They can't possibly be true.

And if we decide that a claim is false -- that what it proposes is truly impossible -- part and parcel of that is accepting that no new evidence can be presented which would indicate that it is true.

I can't accept the ONE rule, because I've heard some things that I know are wrong.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Perhaps there are cases where you can be fairly certain no new data will be forthcoming but there isn't a clearly defined border of where to draw the line between those and other cases. If you decide that you are right then when presented with new data you will be blinded to it and continue to deny it because you are sure you are right. Once you are certain you are right you become a believer. In the case of leprechauns , yeah sure it won't likely matter but where do you draw the line? It's simple, no line should be drawn, just learn to live with a little uncertainty. Be willing to look because you never know what you might learn and it's the best defense against dogmas.

 

[AndyD]

I'd assume that where something has actually been proved wrong, such as flat Earth, the question of "new evidence" doesn't really apply (although I guess there could be an argument that all contrary evidence is a lie/conspiracy). However in the areas of proving that "X doesn't exist", the question must remain open since it is generally impossible to prove the negative.

When the weight of evidence is such that it is extremely improbable that "X exists", then a sensible skeptic surely doesn't waste much of the day seeking evidence of its existence. The onus then is on the believer to find and present evidence in such a way that the skeptic can't help but be interested in finding out more. Hence the requirement for a challenger in the the MDC to have prior exposure (media, academia) for their claims. If you can't even convince a reporter that you've got evidence of something, then few skeptics would be interested in listening.

I've said before that this appears to be a major problem for skepticism trying to convince fence sitters because, on one side, we have absolute believers selling an "absolute truth" (God, spirits, homeopathy) and on the other side we have skeptics saying "that's highly unlikely".

Of course, we all know that a hell of a lot of skeptics are much blunter than that and openly dismiss faith-based claims, but when they state outright "there is no X", they leave themselves open to claims they are relying on faith.

imho.

 

[fromdownunder]

I don't really like the term "new" evidence, because that implies that some evidence exists. To take the three examples you used, geocentrism, a flat earth, leprechauns, there is no evidence supporting these claims, and for the first two ample evidence that they are false.

As far as leprechauns, I am not sure that there have ever been evidential claims that they really exist (but I am open to correction), so to take a claim where there was some evidence, let's look at the "fairies at the bottom of the garden". There was evidence - photographs. We had some evidence of their existance. Which was eventually falsified, so we are back at no evidence.

Sagan's dragon is not a good example of anything much, because it is not possible to produce evidence for it. He defined this option out of existance as an option. IIRC, he then extended it to simply cover woo claims which can never be evidenced. But some things like the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, or even extant life on Mars cannot be defined out of existance the way the dragon was.

So with claims where there is no evidence, I simply sit these things on the backburner and don't think much about them. If something resembling evidence comes along, and the subject interests me, I will take a look. The Bermuda Triangle was one such example, I followed it and the evidence appeared to be sufficient, if just a cumulative gathering of odd events in a "small" area, that something appeared to be occuring that was out of the norm. Further study showed that this turned out to be wrong, so I tossed out the concept. For the Bermuda Triangle concept, we are back to zero evidence.

In cases where evidence for something is so overpowering that it dwarfs claims against it (say, evolution as an example) I accept the evidence, and unless an argument against is particularly compelling and provides some verifiable evidence to support the argument. In these cases, I will claim that alternatives are definately, emphatically and plainly impossible.

Anyway, rambling a bit, so I'll stop.

Norm

 

[quarky]

To me, being skeptical implies a state of not being convinced. Convince me; I'm open. Instead, skeptics are prone to a state of non-belief. And i can't blame them, for sure. But its not what scrutiny is about, exactly. Nor is science the religion of not believing in god. It is a seductive side track to reason.

 

[borealys]

Sagan's dragon is not a good example of anything much, because it is not possible to produce evidence for it. He defined this option out of existance as an option. IIRC, he then extended it to simply cover woo claims which can never be evidenced. But some things like the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, or even extant life on Mars cannot be defined out of existance the way the dragon was.

So with claims where there is no evidence, I simply sit these things on the backburner and don't think much about them. If something resembling evidence comes along, and the subject interests me, I will take a look. The Bermuda Triangle was one such example, I followed it and the evidence appeared to be sufficient, if just a cumulative gathering of odd events in a "small" area, that something appeared to be occuring that was out of the norm. Further study showed that this turned out to be wrong, so I tossed out the concept. For the Bermuda Triangle concept, we are back to zero evidence.

In cases where evidence for something is so overpowering that it dwarfs claims against it (say, evolution as an example) I accept the evidence, and unless an argument against is particularly compelling and provides some verifiable evidence to support the argument. In these cases, I will claim that alternatives are definately, emphatically and plainly impossible.

I think this sums it up pretty well. To me, the skeptical approach doesn't entail never drawing conclusions, but rather, being willing to look at new information and evidence even if it appears to contradict your conclusions.

 

[GoodGuysEatPie]

I prefer just not to enter into the realm of belief or disbelief. I generally speak in terms of confidence. I have a high degree of confidence that the theory of evolution is an accurate and useful description of nature. I have no confidence that creationism is an accurate and useful description of nature. My confidence hinges on the amount of evidence for a description, and that there is varied and independent convergence on that description by credible sources. That last part is important because we, as skeptics, can't deny something (or not have confidence in something) merely because we haven't experienced or witnessed something personally.

~ggep~

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Perhaps there are cases where you can be fairly certain no new data will be forthcoming but there isn't a clearly defined border of where to draw the line between those and other cases. If you decide that you are right then when presented with new data you will be blinded to it and continue to deny it because you are sure you are right. Once you are certain you are right you become a believer. In the case of leprechauns , yeah sure it won't likely matter but where do you draw the line? It's simple, no line should be drawn, just learn to live with a little uncertainty. Be willing to look because you never know what you might learn and it's the best defense against dogmas.

That sums it up. I can´t add anything to that.

Nominated.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

There are some things I've closed the book on, yes. Things that I'm not doubtful of or skeptical of since I know that they are false.

Take Sylvia Browne. She's a fraud, end of story. I'm convinced of it, through and through, beyond a shadow of a doubt. If I ever did have a shadow of a doubt, it's long since be extinguished. I'm not holding out any hope of being proven wrong, allthough that's the stance I like to take on most questionable claims.

However, if I ever would be- somehow - proven wrong about her, I'd be the very first to apologize and recant.

 

[Dunstan]

Piggy, this is a piece of skeptic ... dogma, sloganeering, whatever, that has bugged me, and is one of the reasons I have no interest in calling myself a "skeptic" these days.

Do skeptics talk like this among "other" people, or just themselves? When someone asks them if they believe in the Loch Ness Monster, do they just say "no" like a normal healthy individual, or do they launch into the whole spiel about "well, I can only express a conditional opinion based on the evidence heretofore known to be, and I will of course continue to keep an open mind and revisit the issue as new evidence comes in...."

If the latter, this may explain why skepticism isn't more popular....

It all seems like a weird exercise in semantic butt-covering, like you have to leave yourself an "out" just in case new evidence proves you wrong. "Yes, well, I never said Nessie didn't exist! I offered a conditional opinion...." Live a little, I say! State an opinion, and if subsequent revelations prove you wrong, then just admit you were wrong and move on.

And it all seems rather insincere. The jokes and snide remarks so many of us enjoy at the expense of psychics, homeopaths, astrologers, and other "woos" suggest that our minds aren't quite as open as the official party line claims.

 

[H3LL]

I agree with Piggy.

The chance of some claims being true is so vanishingly minuscule as to be false.

The claims of (many) here that we must always be open to the option that new evidence will present itself is ridiculous and close to woo IMHO.

I had a similar argument before; something like I could fly to Jupiter on this pencil.

Despite the fact that we would require a major shift in the fabric of the universe and throw away everything we know about physics for this to happen, some considered that it could be true and should be seriously considered.

I argued that one had to set a limit on what could be considered true. Some things are just too preposterous to consider.

That's why I'm an atheist and not a woolly agnostic pretending to be one.

At least we know something about flying, space travel, Jupiter and pencils. Gods are undefinable, so less likely to be true than inter-planetary travel by stationery.

.

 

[H3LL]

It all seems like a weird exercise in semantic butt-covering...

And that as well.

Nicely put.

.

 

[Hatchet]

I'd assume that where something has actually been proved wrong, such as flat Earth.

I think there is a subtle distinction here that is important.

Suppose someone could present evidence to me that the Earth actually is flat, but only appears round. This person can come up with a test that distinguishes between "the flat-appears round" case and the "actually is round" case. This test is performed and confirms that the earth actually is flat.

With that sort of evidence, I'd be willing to change my opinion on the matter. I would not dogmatically cling to my round earth belief in the face of compelling contrary evidence.

But until someone could do all the above, I'm happy enough to behave as if the earth is round and consider the case closed.

It is subtle, but I think the key is that a skeptic will change their opinion, even on something they considered 1000% true, if better evidence is presented. It does not however mean we have to behave as though every claim is tentative.

Cheers.

 

[Rasmus]

Some claims are just false. They can't possibly be true.

And if we decide that a claim is false -- that what it proposes is truly impossible -- part and parcel of that is accepting that no new evidence can be presented which would indicate that it is true.

I can't accept the ONE rule, because I've heard some things that I know are wrong.

I try to make a simple difference between accepting that the rule is a rule and that there is a reality in which I can fairly assess that some things just won't happen.

I know there are no dragons. Case closed.
But yes, I stick to the rule. I simply acknowledge that I might be wrong. If that type of mental masturbation makes anyone happy I'll readily admit that I can conceive of evidence that prove the existence of dragons. But I won't waste much time looking at whatever "evidence" people try to show me unless the news are full of flying crocodiles and burning cities.

Yes, I am open to new evidence. But I am not under any obligation to assume it's forthcoming from someone with a website. (In an ideal world with unlimited resources I would have to do just that. I don't have all the time I'df like to have, though, and I may therefore decide that it is just too unlikely that the proof for the existence of a god will be forthcoming on a web-forum. I have better things to do with my time, like preparing my revenge against Tsukasa Buddha...)

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't agree that we should be open to new evidence in every case, and I don't agree that we actually are, no matter what we may say.

Most of the time, yes, we're open to new evidence. But to make it universally and eternally mandatory?

If you do that, in effect you're saying that we can never come to a definitive conclusion. And that's a pretty big claim.

Yep. But that's how it works. That's how science works.

Remember, we are not skeptics as in "we doubt". We are skeptics because we let the evidence decide what is real and what is not. We are scientific skeptics.

If you don't want to be open to new evidence, what would your reaction have been to the discovery of tectonic plates moving?

Before then, it was set in..well, stone: Continents didn't move, dammit! There is no evidence of it, and - really - why should we believe that continents move? Getouttahere! Unthinkable!

And yet - E pur si muove! I am sure you get the secondary reference to that one.

It's easy for us to say that we're open to new evidence of, oh... geocentrism, a flat earth, leprechauns -- but we can do that with utter confidence that none will be forthcoming, and anything offered will be bunk.

No, we can not. Take leprechauns: There could very well be a small group of very small people - or something that we merely saw as people. What if "leprechaun" really was something else than we thought it to be? It wouldn't be the first time - just take the example of gorillas. When gorillas first were encountered by westerners (Hanno), they were thought to be hairy women. Yes, "gorilla" means "hairy women".

Don't rule out the possibility of "leprechauns".

So it costs us nothing.

That's precisely what it does. It costs us the possibility of us being wrong. A stance indistinguishable from religious dogma.

Not just any "new evidence", but maybe new kinds of evidence, or a higher and more reliable degree of evidence. If a million unsupported anecdotes aren't worth anything, then the next anecdote after that isn't going to advance our knowledge either. For most things, we should show the same unwillingness to accept more of the same non-evidence for consideration. If someone's got something to show us that's concrete, we should maybe give it some attention.

Exactly.

What would Darwin have said, if we presented evidence based on carbon dating and DNA to him? He would have gone "Huh?" - because such evidence was unthinkable in his time.

Some claims are just false. They can't possibly be true.

And if we decide that a claim is false -- that what it proposes is truly impossible -- part and parcel of that is accepting that no new evidence can be presented which would indicate that it is true.

I can't accept the ONE rule, because I've heard some things that I know are wrong.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are a Carthagenian, just before Hanno arrives home. You have not seen evidence of a tribe of hairy men and women, and you don't pay any serious thought to the rumors that such a tribe exists. You know it is wrong.

Then, Hanno comes back from his journey, and tells you of this tribe of hairy men and women.

What do you do? Stick to your belief that "some claims are just false - they can't possibly be true"? Or accept that Hanno was right - and you were wrong?

Sagan's dragon is not a good example of anything much, because it is not possible to produce evidence for it. He defined this option out of existance as an option. IIRC, he then extended it to simply cover woo claims which can never be evidenced. But some things like the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, or even extant life on Mars cannot be defined out of existance the way the dragon was.

Sagan's Dragon in the Garage is first and foremost an example of how woos move the goalposts. It is not an example of why things exist - or not exist.

Piggy, this is a piece of skeptic ... dogma, sloganeering, whatever, that has bugged me, and is one of the reasons I have no interest in calling myself a "skeptic" these days.

Do skeptics talk like this among "other" people, or just themselves? When someone asks them if they believe in the Loch Ness Monster, do they just say "no" like a normal healthy individual, or do they launch into the whole spiel about "well, I can only express a conditional opinion based on the evidence heretofore known to be, and I will of course continue to keep an open mind and revisit the issue as new evidence comes in...."

If the latter, this may explain why skepticism isn't more popular....

It all seems like a weird exercise in semantic butt-covering, like you have to leave yourself an "out" just in case new evidence proves you wrong. "Yes, well, I never said Nessie didn't exist! I offered a conditional opinion...." Live a little, I say! State an opinion, and if subsequent revelations prove you wrong, then just admit you were wrong and move on.

And it all seems rather insincere. The jokes and snide remarks so many of us enjoy at the expense of psychics, homeopaths, astrologers, and other "woos" suggest that our minds aren't quite as open as the official party line claims.

It is neither butt-covering or insincere. The strength of skepticism lies in the openness to be wrong - but we have to be shown wrong, precisely the way we show other people wrong.

We can't be taken seriously, if we want to convince that other people are wrong based on evidence, if we are not prepared to accept the possibility that we could also be wrong.

If we aren't, then we are placing ourselves on a piedestal - skeptics can't be wrong, but other people can.

Despite the fact that we would require a major shift in the fabric of the universe and throw away everything we know about physics for this to happen, some considered that it could be true and should be seriously considered.

You think "major shifts" don't happen in science? How old is the current view of physics?

I argued that one had to set a limit on what could be considered true. Some things are just too preposterous to consider.

Put yourself in Darwin's place. What would you have thought of DNA and carbon dating?

That's why I'm an atheist and not a woolly agnostic pretending to be one.

If that is your reason to be an atheist, then you are just as dogmatic as the worst religious fanatic.

At least we know something about flying, space travel, Jupiter and pencils. Gods are undefinable, so less likely to be true than inter-planetary travel by stationery.

Yes, we know something about those things. But we don't know everything.

I think there is a subtle distinction here that is important.

Suppose someone could present evidence to me that the Earth actually is flat, but only appears round. This person can come up with a test that distinguishes between "the flat-appears round" case and the "actually is round" case. This test is performed and confirms that the earth actually is flat.

With that sort of evidence, I'd be willing to change my opinion on the matter. I would not dogmatically cling to my round earth belief in the face of compelling contrary evidence.

But until someone could do all the above, I'm happy enough to behave as if the earth is round and consider the case closed.

It is subtle, but I think the key is that a skeptic will change their opinion, even on something they considered 1000% true, if better evidence is presented. It does not however mean we have to behave as though every claim is tentative.

You know what? I've heard that the universe is curved. How can that be? I know it's wrong!

....don't I?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with the OP and I am one of those people who has argued repeatedly that I have no problem stating firmly there are no gods and evolution is a fact (depending on the conversation because there is still a place for the scientific terminology of the word, theory).

On the other hand, I've also been more conscious of how I state things in order to be more accurate. So instead of saying X is or isn't true, I have been saying more often, the evidence does or doesn't support the conclusion. It seems hypocritical to state all my conclusions as facts while complaining someone else's conclusions I don't agree with are not.

I do think there are lots of subconscious messages in the way we word things that are worth paying attention to.

Examples:
Alternative medicine implies it's OK or that an alternative to evidence is acceptable.

Saying one can find studies to support both sides of an argument implies science is unreliable to resolve such issues. It's important to word such a statement differently. "People can cherry pick evidence to support both sides" implies the person's arguments are flawed, but it doesn't implicate science itself as the problem. It is important not to undermine the integrity of science itself.

So the way we communicate certainly in science is a very important issue. There is no absolute rule it can never be communicated. I have reason to declare atheism is legit and agnosticism is not necessary. With evolution using the wording, "overwhelming evidence" suffices quite nicely.

 

[cgallaga]

My two cents: Piggy's whole argument seems to me to be based on some supposition that we are now at some pinnacle of understanding. We are not. But history is full of groups of scientists who thought they were and made similar such claims to know things for certain. And then the house fell down.

Uncertainty is our strength as uncomfortable as it is.