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

[Correa Neto]

I agree with cuddles mostly, but I don't like that word sure so much. But whats wrong with: We think that new reliable evidence proving us wrong is not likely to show up. ???

This should be, I think, reserved to the most plausible claims or eventually some situations where you may want more precision, such as a phylosophical debate.

The universal flood (the example I presented) is clearly one case where this is not needed. Its as plausible as claiming humans can fly by flapping arms. In both cases, I feel safe enough to say we know that reliable evidence to back these claims will never show up.

The fact that the universal flood is part of a given number of religious traditions will not make it more plausible; it should not grant it special status if the truth about it actually matters. I would only say "I think it will never show up" if among a (potentialy) hostile audience, for example. Another thing to take care with is that many a woo will use this as a chance to start the worn-out "science knows nothing", "so, there's a chance it may have happened/be real" and "science was proven wrong before" arguments. But I digress.

 

[JoeEllison]

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.

I don't know any skeptics who think that an "open mind" is the virtue you claim. The "official party line" is to have a mind that is not so open that your brains fall out.

The reason we have to hedge our bets is because of intellectual honesty, and to preempt the dishonest twisting of skepticism by woosters and pseudoskeptics who accuse us of not being open-minded enough... kind of like what you just did, come to think of it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Maybe people are using a strange standard of "open-minded".

I think that provisionally rejecting a claim with a high degree of confidence is the same thing as not believing the claim. Whether I believe compelling evidence will ever surface in the future, is irrelevant. The fact is, if compelling evidence comes to light, I will change my position. (So will all other skeptics, and everyone with sense.)

I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster. I don't think there will ever be compelling evidence of its existence. However, if in the future there is actual compelling evidence (like finding a corpse of one, or capturing a live specimen), I would certainly change my position based on that evidence.

At the moment, based on all available evidence, I'm certain this will never happen. (My feeling of "certainty" isn't worth a lot either--if new, compelling evidence ever does come to light, I will accept the claim that I now reject with a high level of confidence.)

 

[CFLarsen]

You use different methods for shapes on curved surfaces.

I don't use E=mc² to balance my cheque book either.

Inappropriate tools for the job in hand is not what is being discussed but that in some wierd Larsen-esque Universe I perhaps can actually balance my cheque book with E=mc² and it shouldn't be discarded as nonsense.

Oh, sweet Thor...

We use different sets of physics, depending on where we are.

On our "scale", Newtonian physics is quite sufficient for our everyday use. If you place a paper on a flat table, the table may be absolutely flat, but the curvature of Earth isn't big enough to influence the "flatness" of the paper - not for your use anyway.

But if you want to be extremely accurate, the paper isn't absolutely flat, and neither is the table. The curvature of space does make the paper and table curve - juuuuuuuuuust a little bit.

The discovery of Einsteinian physics did not invalidate Newtonian physics. It just explained things that Newtonian physics didn't.

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

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

 

[Jimbo07]

The point is, there is no contradiction between stating that you know something while also being open to changing your mind if you find out something you didn't know before.

Agreed.

You don't have to "remain open to the evidence," in the woo sense of having an "open mind." You don't even have to be prepared to be wrong. If compelling evidence of something comes along, you'll be wrong, regardless of whether you were prepared!

The world keeps turning...

 

[Egg]

This should be, I think, reserved to the most plausible claims or eventually some situations where you may want more precision, such as a phylosophical debate.

The universal flood (the example I presented) is clearly one case where this is not needed. Its as plausible as claiming humans can fly by flapping arms. In both cases, I feel safe enough to say we know that reliable evidence to back these claims will never show up.

The fact that the universal flood is part of a given number of religious traditions will not make it more plausible; it should not grant it special status if the truth about it actually matters. I would only say "I think it will never show up" if among a (potentialy) hostile audience, for example. Another thing to take care with is that many a woo will use this as a chance to start the worn-out "science knows nothing", "so, there's a chance it may have happened/be real" and "science was proven wrong before" arguments. But I digress.

Isn't plausibility largely subjective?

 

[roger]

If you accept evidence, as, well, evidence, then you can decide things.

Take the assertion: your toenails are made of beer. Take your shoes off and check, I'll wait.

Okay, I think we can agree the assertion is false. You have conclusive evidence that your toenails are not made of beer. Of course, you didn't have to take your shoes off, since we know the nature of fluids in liguid states doesn't allow them to have the properties of solids, but check we did, and now we have incontravertable evidence that the statement is false. I don't need to be open to new evidence, the evidence I have has decided the issue.

I know I have two hands. I can see them as I type. No evidence is possible to support any other conclusion. I see them. I know it's true. Period. No fundamental shift in our understanding of physics or the world will change that. Prove I'm in a computer program a la the Matrix, and still, within that matrix, I have two hands. Tweak that program so I have three, but still, right now, I have two. It's how it is. My mind is not open to other possibilities, since I have conclusive evidence already.

 

[Correa Neto]

Isn't plausibility largely subjective?

Only to a certain point (cultural relativism included).

There's nothing subjective in the fact that humans can't fly by flapping arms. The fact is that (phisolophical discussions apart) for all practical reasons we live in a material world where there are certain physical "laws" which define limits for what can and can not be done.

So, a fringe subject about something which breaks these limits is more implausible than one which does not and usually no ammont of arguments about "undiscovered principles" and similar stuff will change that.

Diferent cultures (or cultural groups, subcultures, etc,) may have different plausibility evaluations for the universal flood and humans flying by flapping their arms; some may consider these things perfectly plausible and even factual. Despite of this cultural bias, both are actually impossible because they require violations of what is possible, for all practical means, in our universe. They will be less plausible than a fringe subject without this problem.

 

[Piggy]

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.

Btw, I would agree that we shouldn't be unwilling to discuss claims of new evidence, even for a flat earth.

Of course, sometimes it's best not to get sucked into any haggling over details when it can be pointed out that the "new evidence", even if true, would not actually support the claim.

 

[Piggy]

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.

Yes, but we don't need a "bright line".

There's no bright line border that you can draw which will, by reference to it, tell you whether you're dealing with dialects or separate languages. But that doesn't mean that you can't make the distinction in some cases -- you certainly can.

There's no point of altitude where atmosphere ends and space begins, but that doesn't mean we can't conclude that my house is inside the earth's atmosphere, and the planet Jupiter is outside of it.

I live with tons of uncertainty.

But that doesn't mean that I must be open to the possibility that new evidence might be produced which could demonstrate that any and every claim ever made, or yet to be made, is true.

In fact, we do know that some things aren't true.

I don't have to become some kind of "true believer", some kind of closed-minded dogmatist to judge the merits of a case -- without some generic "bright line" to make up my mind for me -- and in some cases conclude that a claim is definitively false.

 

[Piggy]

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

I'm not talking about science narrowly. I'm talking about skepticism.

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.

That's right. And that's why the ONE rule should not be accepted by skeptics.

The ONE rule claims -- before seeing the facts of the case -- that the evidence cannot lead to a definitive conclusion in any case.

That's not good skepticism.

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

None of those examples make any difference.

You can list all sorts of cases where a lot of people came to erroneous conclusions.

So what?

The question is this: Are there really absolutely NO cases in which we can say, without reservation, that a claim is false?

That's what the ONE rule contends.

And I think it's bunk, that's all.

 

[Piggy]

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.

Good point, so just to clear things up....

No, I don't think we're at any such pinnacle, or ever will be.

The question is not "Do we know everything?"

The question is "Do we know nothing, as the ONE rule would force us to contend?"

We do know some things. We do know that, in our normal frame of reference, the earth is shaped more like a baseball than like a frisbee.

If I said I were open to the possibility that new evidence will show otherwise, I'd be lying.

We would not be living in the world we live in today if things were otherwise.

 

[Piggy]

The third, and much more sensible, point of view is that we can be absolutely sure of something until we see new evidence.

That makes no sense to me.

If you believe that there's a possibility that a claim might be proven true by new evidence, then you cannot say it is definitively false.

Let's face it... if something is false, then it necessarily follows that new evidence which proves it true cannot be produced.

 

[CFLarsen]

That makes no sense to me.

If you believe that there's a possibility that a claim might be proven true by new evidence, then you cannot say it is definitively false.

Let's face it... if something is false, then it necessarily follows that new evidence which proves it true cannot be produced.

Then, you are saying that the evidence cannot lead to a definitive conclusion in any case.

Can you give a list of, say, 10 things you consider to be beyond doubt - from here till eternity - so to speak?

 

[Doubt]

That makes no sense to me.

If you believe that there's a possibility that a claim might be proven true by new evidence, then you cannot say it is definitively false.

Let's face it... if something is false, then it necessarily follows that new evidence which proves it true cannot be produced.

What Cuddles said makes complete sense to me.

Let's face it. Our perception of what is true or false is not always correct. More often our perception is incomplete.

Gravity being a good example of the later. Newtonian gravity turned out to have some problems but was the best thing we had. Enter special relativity.

For the former case, we have meteorites. Once thought impossible for good reason. Turned out they were possible.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

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

You've asked this question a couple of times now and, although, this may be seen as a slight derail, let me give you an answer.

There is no evidence that human intelligence per se has changed at all in recorded human history. Presented with evidence and backed up by a logical explanation I'm Pretty Sure™ Darwin would have said, "WOW! That explains the mechanism for inheritance and the variations that support selection." He would be up to speed in a couple of hours. Kepler took decades of his life to develop his three Laws of Planetary motion. Read them once and you can understand.

Some years ago, before the ubiquitous internet and satellite TV, I read an article about a missonary in "deepest Africa" who had been asked about the reason for the phases of the Moon and had given an explanation using a candle and a couple of fruit. The next night she found the man she had given the demonstration to repeating it to his excited friends. Don't sell us Humans short!

 

[blutoski]

First thought: consider these two statements:

1. "I can't know anything for sure, except that I exist, even though some things seem so certain," and

2. "What I know about the existence of things could be wrong, even though some things seem so certain."

I think your original post was attempting to address the latter type of statement, but notice that it is virtually the same as the former, which is solipsism.




Second thought: I think a problem arises when attempting to distinguish between:

a. the antique philosophy of ideal skepticism

b. the modern philosophy of applied skepticism - which has many forms (and thus the confusion earlier by saying that you're not talking about science, but about skepticism - I consider them the same thing)

c. the modern organized skeptic movement - which is utterly vague and undefined - and

d. anybody who just plain calls what they're doing skepticism. I've never met an antisemite or homeopath who doesn't portray himself as a skeptic railing against the system

I call this the 'true skeptic problem'.



Regardless, the concern about "open-mindedness" and its relation to potentially absurd consequences of exaggerated uncertainty is not new to skeptics.

The antique skeptics were cautious about sliding into solipsism (the belief that we can't truly be certain about anything other than our own existence). Descartes invented Cartesian skepticism, which was an attempt to establish both epistemological (most have replaced his approach with Popperian falsifiability and/or Kuhn's scientific community model) and ontological boundaries (a method for defining what can we know implies a method for defining what we cannot know).

Bill Wisdom spoke to this in an essay that was ultimately published in Skeptic magazine: [SKEPTICISM AND THE JUSTIFICATION OF BELIEF].

 

[CFLarsen]

You've asked this question a couple of times now and, although, this may be seen as a slight derail, let me give you an answer.

There is no evidence that human intelligence per se has changed at all in recorded human history. Presented with evidence and backed up by a logical explanation I'm Pretty Sure™ Darwin would have said, "WOW! That explains the mechanism for inheritance and the variations that support selection." He would be up to speed in a couple of hours. Kepler took decades of his life to develop his three Laws of Planetary motion. Read them once and you can understand.

Some years ago, before the ubiquitous internet and satellite TV, I read an article about a missonary in "deepest Africa" who had been asked about the reason for the phases of the Moon and had given an explanation using a candle and a couple of fruit. The next night she found the man she had given the demonstration to repeating it to his excited friends. Don't sell us Humans short!

Indeed. Because Darwin let the evidence speak, not his preconceived notions that he couldn't be wrong.

If Piggy had been Darwin, Darwin would have rejected DNA and carbon dating, because those were not available in his time. He wouldn't have imagined that such fantastic discoveries were possible.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I think the argument as presented is a false dichotomy, although a worryingly common one even among skeptics. It's not just a choice between saying we are absolutely sure about something and staying open to new evidence. The third, and much more sensible, point of view is that we can be absolutely sure of something until we see new evidence.

For example, I am absolutely sure that the Earth is not flat. There is no question about it. We have pictures, we have measurements, we can see ecplises, we can see ships pass over the horizon and so on. This is something that is absolutely certain. But, I am still open to new evidence. If someone were to come along with a theory that could explain all these observations and still allow a flat Earth, I wouldn't reject it out of hand. I may not take it very seriously, and it would almost certainly fail given the amount of evidence that already exists, but it would still be taken into account.

The point is, there is no contradiction between stating that you know something while also being open to changing your mind if you find out something you didn't know before.

I am sure we agree on some things but this is a semantical argument. If you are absolutely sure then there is no need for new evidence. New evidence is totally uncalled for an pointless since you are absolutely right. However if you want to say that someone who is absolutely sure is also someone who isn't sure and is willing to look at new evidence because it may show that they are wrong then go ahead and I will agree with you.

 

[Piggy]

That makes no sense to me.

If you believe that there's a possibility that a claim might be proven true by new evidence, then you cannot say it is definitively false.

Let's face it... if something is false, then it necessarily follows that new evidence which proves it true cannot be produced.

Then, you are saying that the evidence cannot lead to a definitive conclusion in any case.

You're gonna have to explain that one.

Can you give a list of, say, 10 things you consider to be beyond doubt - from here till eternity - so to speak?

Don't need to give you 10. But here's a few:

In our normal human frame of reference, the earth is shaped more like a baseball than like a frisbee -- it's a globe, not a disk.

For everyday applications, 2+2=4. You pick up 2 rocks, then pick up 2 more rocks, you have 4 rocks in your hand, not 3 or 5.

The story in Genesis where it says there's a lake of fresh water up above the sky, and that's where the rain comes from -- that's false.

Santa Claus is a fairy story for kids. There's not really a jolly fat man living with elves at the North Pole and making toys to deliver to children from his flying sleigh on Christmas Eve.


If I told you that I was open to new evidence that we're wrong about the earth being round and it's really flat like it seems at a glance, or that we've been wrong all along about 2 and 2 making 4, or that there really is a body of water above the atmosphere, or that Santa Claus is real, I'd be lying.

I'm not open to new evidence for any of that because it's all definitively wrong. There will never be any valid evidence in favor of those positions because there cannot be. If those things were right, the world wouldn't be the way we know it is.

So are you going to tell me that you honestly believe that any of those things might be true -- that Santa Claus is real, that 2+2!=4 for everyday purposes, that the earth is a disk and not a globe from our normal human perspective, that there's a huge lake just beyond the atmosphere?

Because if you do tell me that you believe those things might be true, then I have to say:

That's one of the hallmarks of a false dogma -- it leads you to absurd and obviously false conclusions that don't match reality, and folks choose the dogma over reality.