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

[Piggy]

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.

That pretty much sums up where I am on this, too.

I'm glad you mentioned the Matrix bit, because that always pops up eventually.

The argument that most boggles me is the "universal standard" argument -- the claim that we can't judge any case on its merits because we don't have a universal formula to apply to all cases.

As skeptics we should be willing to examine each case and judge it on its merits.

 

[Piggy]

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.

It's a mistake in logic to jump from "our perception of what is true or false is not always correct" to "our perception of what is true and false can never be determined to be correct".

Similarly, it is a mistake in logic to jump from "often our perception is incomplete" to "it's impossible to muster sufficient evidence for anything".

And your examples -- gravity and meteorites -- don't save the ONE rule. You can point to all kinds of things that people have been wrong about. You can also point to things people have been right about.

The fact that lots of people have been wrong about lots of things over the years does not mean that no one can ever be definitively right about anything, or that there cannot exist claims that can be definitively disproven.

The logic just doesn't work.

 

[Piggy]

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.

You're totally misconstruing what I've said.

I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with you on this because it will derail the thread and I've really loved the posts here, especially since I've met some forum members whose posts I hadn't read much of before, like AndyD, fromdownunder, Rasmus, and Correa Neto, among others.

You're trying to portray me as someone who rejects the possibility of new evidence offhand, and who can't imagine new perspectives, new discoveries, and new technologies.

But that's not who I am and it's not what I'm saying.

I've already said that we should be open to new evidence most of the time.

What I object to is the unfounded -- and it is unfounded -- belief that we must be open to new evidence all the time. And I especially object to the suggestion that anyone who rejects this dogma is somehow being unskeptical.

I don't mind honest disagreement, but... come on now.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I'm probably missing something here, but I think that the notion of being open to new evidence is a matter of procedural fairness, not of substance. If someone wants to suggest ( say) that things fall up, not down, he is not forbidden from presenting whatever he takes to be evidence for his view — in any forum that will give him a hearing.

The analogy would be with the lawcourts. Anyone may present a case— but it does not follow that he has a case worth presenting.

 

[JoeEllison]

You're totally misconstruing what I've said.

It was pretty obviously intentional, don't you think?

 

[H3LL]

The forum was playing up so I couldn't respond to CFL's feeble attempt to re-direct the thread along his own bizarre line of 'reasoning'.

What Darwin's imagined surprise at changes in knowledge on something he accurately speculated about has to do with the universe changing to permit pencil travel is anybodies guess. Some form of madness on CFL's behalf is my only speculation, but it seemed important to him.

Others seem to have responded far more eloquently and effectively than I ever could. I cannot add anything better.

Thank you.

.

 

[Piggy]

It was pretty obviously intentional, don't you think?

I'm open to new evidence on that point.

 

[Piggy]

I'm probably missing something here, but I think that the notion of being open to new evidence is a matter of procedural fairness, not of substance. If someone wants to suggest ( say) that things fall up, not down, he is not forbidden from presenting whatever he takes to be evidence for his view — in any forum that will give him a hearing.

The analogy would be with the lawcourts. Anyone may present a case— but it does not follow that he has a case worth presenting.

If by "open to new evidence" someone means "willing to discuss whatever someone wants to claim", then in that sense I am certainly "open". Everything's open for discussion.

But in Jeff's article -- which I chose as a jumping-off point because in my experience it's a common belief among skeptics -- that wasn't what was implied.

What was implied is that it is unskeptical to go beyond "I don't believe that because I have no reason to believe it, but I'm willing to accept that there might someday be evidence provided which would cause me to believe it" and assert instead "That idea is demonstrably false".

The notion that I'm objecting to is not that we should be willing to discuss all points of view -- surely we should.

The notion I'm objecting to is that it is somehow unskeptical to conclude that any claim is certainly false.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Perhaps your concern is wasting time with people who haven't a clue? You have no obligations to people just because they are saying something. It's up to them to provide reasonable evidence and no need to respond those those who don't. Skepticism doesn't really help you decide how you should respond to others much, only how you evaluate evidence.

 

[Piggy]

Perhaps your concern is wasting time with people who haven't a clue? You have no obligations to people just because they are saying something. It's up to them to provide reasonable evidence and no need to respond those those who don't. Skepticism doesn't really help you decide how you should respond to others much, only how you evaluate evidence.

Was that a response to my post?

 

[Doubt]

It's a mistake in logic to jump from "our perception of what is true or false is not always correct" to "our perception of what is true and false can never be determined to be correct".

Similarly, it is a mistake in logic to jump from "often our perception is incomplete" to "it's impossible to muster sufficient evidence for anything".

And your examples -- gravity and meteorites -- don't save the ONE rule. You can point to all kinds of things that people have been wrong about. You can also point to things people have been right about.

The fact that lots of people have been wrong about lots of things over the years does not mean that no one can ever be definitively right about anything, or that there cannot exist claims that can be definitively disproven.

The logic just doesn't work.

The logic appears to work just fine. We can only point to things where the chance of them being wrong is very small. At some point, some things must be assumed to be true. But that does not make them absolutely proven as true.

We can never be absolutely certain we have it all right. Which is what Cuddles was pointing out. We still cannot be sure about what we know about gravity since we cannot connect it to the other physical forces yet.

That said, there are things we have to take as they are. 2+2=4 is not going to be disproved. But it is not proven either since it is a matter of axioms and definitions rather than something to be researched.

I can say with reasonable certainty that there is no unicorn in my closet. I cannot be certain that some bastard won't find a way to make a unicorn. (Although it would probably still be a horse with some manipulated genetics.) So I can not assume that I will be right tomorrow.

What I would like to know is what purpose is served by assuming that we will always be right about some things? What is to be gained by adopting your idea here?

 

[Dogdoctor]

Was that a response to my post?

Sorry Yes it was

 

[Thabiguy]

Ok, I would like to ask something to make sure that I understand correctly.

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.

...

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.

Let's consider the following scenario: You wake up tomorrow and find a jolly fat man sitting next to your bed. He introduces himself as Santa Claus and snaps his fingers. The next moment, you will find yourself in the middle of freezing polar landscape, where you observe green little creatures manufacturing toys and what looks like a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer. The man then goes on to explain how it is possible for him to exist without having been observed, answering your questions, even going all the way to explain new quantum physical theories that are consistent with both his existence and the appearance of the world as you had known it, should you be interested and able to follow the math. He will introduce you to specific predictions of "Santa Claus existence hypothesis" that you can at any later time test with simple experiments (for example, a chant that you can recite to make him appear at any time and place). Then you will find yourself back at your home again, retaining the ability to perform the mentioned experiments, which will give positive results any time you or anyone else tries them.

Now, can you please clarify what your position is?
1. Given this scenario, you would conclude that all this apparent evidence must be invalid (fake, illusory, etc.), because it was already determined that there cannot be any valid evidence for the existence of Santa Claus. Even given arbitrary amount of time and experiments that would seem to confirm the hypothesis, you would refuse to acknowledge its plausibility. You will attempt to find an explanation for all these strange observations that would be consistent with Santa Claus' non-existence, such as drugs, hallucinations, insanity, being trapped in a virtual reality, etc. If these hypotheses are ruled out or unsupported by further experimentation, you will admit that you cannot explain your observations, but you will still maintain that these observations do not constitute valid evidence for the existence of Santa Claus, because such valid evidence cannot exist.
2. The question of what you would do given this scenario is fundamentally meaningless, because this scenario cannot occur. This is because the observations described earlier would, by definition, constitute valid evidence for the existence of Santa Claus, and such evidence cannot exist, therefore such observations cannot possibly be made. - In other words, the sequence of bodily perceptions that would make up these observations is physically impossible in this universe, and cannot be achieved by any means, including, but not limited to, drugs, hallucinations, insanity, or sensory/neural manipulation.
3. Something else - please elaborate.

Please do not take this as an argument. I'm not trying to make a point; instead, I genuinely want to make sure that I fully understand what your position is.

 

[cgallaga]

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.

See I disagree.

I can flap my arms and see that I can not fly. So I can be more certain that at present it is impossible for me to fly by flapping my arms, but I also know that I have flown vast distances many times, thus it is somehow possible for me to fly, and therefore it is possible, though how may be beyond me, that in some future, people will be able to flap their arms to fly. Saying I can not fly by flapping my arms now in no way can logically give me cause or support to say therefore never. It is an unreasonable, nay irrational position to take.

And the flood is a different (and I think worse) problem for most. I honestly have spent almost no time studying the global flood. Just as I have spent almost no time studying dragons. Both myths are prevalent throughout cultures and the science news and books of our day pishaw them. That is about all I can honestly claim to know on the subject. That same weak knowledge is true in many areas of discussion on this board and more so in outside life.

If I am now to dismiss global floods as totally case closed I will be doing so as an argument from authority - my favorite science book or magazine told me so. And in that I am no better than a bible-thumper, regardless of who in some abstract reality could be proven conclusively right for all time. Right here, right now, to be honest, I have to say I think there was no global flood, (and the latter oft un uttered but true) but I a not certain.

 

[JoeEllison]

See I disagree.

I can flap my arms and see that I can not fly. So I can be more certain that at present it is impossible for me to fly by flapping my arms, but I also know that I have flown vast distances many times, thus it is somehow possible for me to fly, and therefore it is possible, though how may be beyond me, that in some future, people will be able to flap their arms to fly. Saying I can not fly by flapping my arms now in no way can logically give me cause or support to say therefore never. It is an unreasonable, nay irrational position to take.

Actually, your position is the sort of irrational position that I think the OP is complaining about. Getting on a 300-ton airplane has absolutely nothing to do with flapping your arms to fly, and the comparison is idiotic. What we know about aerodynamics and human biology make flight-by-flapping impossible, and it is really stupid to assume that we're that wrong about either aspect of science.

 

[Piggy]

We can only point to things where the chance of them being wrong is very small. At some point, some things must be assumed to be true. But that does not make them absolutely proven as true.

Care to support that claim?

I can say with reasonable certainty that there is no unicorn in my closet. I cannot be certain that some bastard won't find a way to make a unicorn. (Although it would probably still be a horse with some manipulated genetics.) So I can not assume that I will be right tomorrow.

You're waffling. Who said anything about tomorrow?

And since a unicorn is a critter who can magically grant wishes if caught, then yeah, you can assume that there is no unicorn in your closet right now, period.

What I would like to know is what purpose is served by assuming that we will always be right about some things? What is to be gained by adopting your idea here?

What is gained is, first, not accusing people of being unskeptical because they refuse to drink the ONE rule Kool-Aid.

Secondly, what is gained is rejecting a false dogma, which -- to my mind -- has value in and of itself.

Thirdly, what is gained is freeing ourselves from the ridiculous position of being forced to argue that, yeah, if you're a skeptic, you have to admit that leprechauns and Santa Claus might be real. Makes us look like fools.

Fourthly, what is gained is clarity of mind. If it's not true that no definitive conclusions can be reached, why labor under that false assumption?

Fifthly, what is gained is intellectual rigor, whereby we demand that sweeping assertions -- claimed to be true for all cases and at all times -- be supported with some sort of evidence, which the ONE rule is not.

 

[Piggy]

Perhaps your concern is wasting time with people who haven't a clue? You have no obligations to people just because they are saying something. It's up to them to provide reasonable evidence and no need to respond those those who don't. Skepticism doesn't really help you decide how you should respond to others much, only how you evaluate evidence.

Good point, but no, my concern isn't wasting time with cranks. I actually think that's worthwhile. Sure, we don't have an obligation to do that, but we shouldn't just ignore the cranks. If we do, we leave the field to them.

My concern is actually intra-skeptic, if I can coin a word here.

I see this dogma being tossed about quite casually, and among prominent skeptics. And it just burns my cheese.

Why should we subscribe to such an unfounded position? And why should we allow intelligent, thoughtful people to be branded as unskeptical because they won't accept a dogma which is unsupported by any evidence or logic?

 

[cgallaga]

Actually, your position is the sort of irrational position that I think the OP is complaining about. Getting on a 300-ton airplane has absolutely nothing to do with flapping your arms to fly, and the comparison is idiotic. What we know about aerodynamics and human biology make flight-by-flapping impossible, and it is really stupid to assume that we're that wrong about either aspect of science.

What part of it is possible, though how may be beyond me, that in some future, people will be able to flap their arms to fly. is an irrational conclusion, and why?

Are you saying that you know for certain that in all the years ahead, there will be no device and no physical environment wherein flapping ones arms will not result in flight? That seems the irrational position to me.

For the record you are strawmanning my post as well. I am not equating a 300-ton airplane with me. But rather making note of the fact that we have overcome incredible physical limitations with technology in just a short span of time, and this gives me evidence that we may do more so in future.

 

[Piggy]

Ok, I would like to ask something to make sure that I understand correctly.

Let's consider the following scenario: You wake up tomorrow and find a jolly fat man sitting next to your bed. He introduces himself as Santa Claus and snaps his fingers. The next moment, you will find yourself in the middle of freezing polar landscape, where you observe green little creatures manufacturing toys and what looks like a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer.

<snip>

Please do not take this as an argument. I'm not trying to make a point; instead, I genuinely want to make sure that I fully understand what your position is.

Well, my position is that such a scenario doesn't tell us anything.

What you're asking is, essentially, if Santa Claus were proven to be real, would you admit it?

But that doesn't get us anywhere, because it's a hypothetical you can ask about anything. If you went up in a space ship and splashed into the lake of fresh water above the atmosphere, would you believe Genesis?

It bypasses the actual question completely.

A thought experiment like that cannot distinguish between what is real and what is not real, between what is possible and what is not possible.

It's like asking a question that begins "If your mother were a bicycle....".

The problem is that such a thought experiment jumps right over the issue at hand and begins by assuming what's at issue is not at issue, then asks what you would do if that were the case.

The real question is this: What are the odds that such a scenario could actually happen.

The answer is not "very close to zero", as some would claim.

The answer is "zero", because if such a thing could happen, the world would not be the way we observe it to be.

 

[JoeEllison]

What part of it is possible, though how may be beyond me, that in some future, people will be able to flap their arms to fly. is an irrational conclusion, and why?

Are you saying that you know for certain that in all the years ahead, there will be no device and no physical environment wherein flapping ones arms will not result in flight? That seems the irrational position to me.

For the record you are strawmanning my post as well. I am not equating a 300-ton airplane with me. But rather making note of the fact that we have overcome incredible physical limitations with technology in just a short span of time, and this gives me evidence that we may do more so in future.

Stupid stupid STUPID! Your post was so full of crap that it is amazing that my monitor didn't reek of feces when that post was displayed. There was no strawman... your point was idiotic.

If I attach myself to a jetpack and then flap my arms as it launches me into the air, I guess I'll flying, but my arms had nothing to do with it. ANY device or technology that allows me to fly doesn't mean that any current idea of flapping my arms to fly has any merit.

You're wrong. Be an adult and admit it. I'll respect you for it, and have a positive opinion of you from here on out if you do. Around here, people who accept that they are wrong and admit it get a highly favorable reputation.

Please do not be incivil in your posts.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson