How truly skeptical is our skepticism?

[Chanakya]

It's called the Pareto principle: 80% of the effect of anything is created by 20% of the causes: companies make 80% of their profit from 20% of their customers, 20% of your training is sufficient to do 80% of your job.
In other words, it takes little effort to do a job sufficiently well, it takes a monumental effort to do it perfectly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

No no, I’m aware of the Pareto principle! What I wasn’t sure about is how that applies in this case, given that we’re discussing skepticism as it might apply to the larger superstructure of the hundred-and-one things, the thousand-and-one things we implicitly believe in, unconsciously take for granted, despite not personally having verified them.

And you're saying, "it takes little effort to do a job sufficiently well, it takes a monumental effort to do it perfectly". Concentrate on the low-hanging fruit, in other words.

But doesn't that already, at the outset, makes presumptions about what is important? That sounds circular-ish to me : because while it could be that in most instances this presumption (80/20 in the sense that you mean it here) would turn out to be valid, it could also be that the presumption does not, in fact, hold in many cases that we do take for granted. The point is, we wouldn’t know, starting out, whether this 80/20 thing does hold here, would we? Concentrating on “low-hanging fruit”, while no doubt a practical enough approach, is a bit like hunting for your lost keys, not knowing where you’ve lost them, under the streetlight because that is the portion of the road that happens to be clearly visible. Practical enough, in a limited way, and for all you know it may work, at times, if you’re lucky : but not necessarily ‘right’. And certainly not ‘enough’, at least if you’re at all serious about finding your keys.

You aren't talking about skepticism, you are talking about scientific study. Some mathematical arguments might be really hard to prove or disprove, but those are the rare exception.
If you can't explain your reasoning to others, it is usually not because they can't understand it.

I think I may not have been able to make my meaning clear to you.

You’d said that if someone manages to stump you with clever reasoning, it is probably worth dissecting the argument anyway, even when that argument is wrong. I was wondering how that might pan out, given that there are so very many things all around us, that we implicitly take for granted without personally validating each and every one of them. After all, we leave all of these things untested and personally unvalidated largely because it is simply not practicable to go around doubting and testing everything! (And also, of course, because most don’t think to doubt these things at all. But the point is, even when one might think to doubt them, even then in practice this becomes a fool’s errand.)

And so, what we’re left with is what we started out with : lots of things that we personally haven’t verified, but which nevertheless we accept. Which may be fine, perhaps there’s nothing under the rock at all -- but we wouldn’t know, either way, would we, since we haven’t look?

That was the issue. I think this is an issue squarely about (personal) skepticism, not scientific study. And this does not necessarily relate, except only obliquely, to how difficult it is to prove or disprove some individual argument(s) or position(s).

 

[Chanakya]

*Sniff, sniff* The plot thins.

Ah, sniffing thinner, is it? That would explain your remarkably discourteous posts (the discourtesy all the more remarkable because it is wholly unprovoked), with these wholly unsupported accusations and insinuations :

You've created a wonderful strawman version of skepticism and I look forward to learning what Woo you hold dear that lead to it.

Listen man this whole pretending to treat "skepticism" as a noble quality while only treating it as a backhanded insult that exists only to claim that its inherents can never live up to it is.... really, really old and played out. It is one of the oldest Woo Slinger and Woo Apologetic "Gotcha" setups on the internet and having to sleepwalk through the motions of performing all the steps with someone who thinks they're the first person ever to come up with it is not exactly high on the list of things I want to spend my day doing. There's literally dozens of "Skeptics aren't skeptical enough to accept my random made up nonsense claims at face value" threads already on this board, go read one of them. I'm not going to PRATT at you.

As to your motives... you have some Woo. It literally the only reason anyone has ever decided to attack skepticism as a concept. It's literally the only reason anyone would or could decide to attack skepticism as a concept.

As you can see, if at all you can get yourself to think clearly, none of what you’ve said here has any bearing with anything I have said. What you’re attacking is some twisted strawman that you seem to have set up, for reasons best known to you, immediately after reading my OP (yours was the first response to the OP), and which twisted strawman you seem unable to shake off from you.

I have no idea what kind of life-experiences (or perhaps forum-experiences) have led you down this path, but whatever it is, I don’t think making a habit of either substance abuse, or of demented and discourteous venting online, can possibly do you any good.

 

[Chanakya]

Rene Descartes wrote this almost 400 years ago:




I'd guess such observations are as old as humankind itself.

"GIGO" (as in the case of pharmaceutical research skewed by various forms of publication bias) will always be a problem, because yes, data input is rarely perfect, and on top of that, our reasoning itself is often flawed.

A lot of things we take as fact are probably anything but.

True! And it seems even that one single strand of certainty that Descartes was content to hold on to (the “I am” part) is now being brought into question.

Regarding this:


Yep. Here's in interesting article that sort of breaks down a lot of what you're alluding to.

http://www.psandman.com/col/disagreement.htm



And from this section:
http://www.psandman.com/col/disagreement.htm#head3



I highly recommend reading the entire article.

Twice.

Lovely article, kellyb! Thanks for linking to it. It directly addresses most of what had been troubling me. (I'm not sure it suggests what the solution might be, though. But of course, correctly recognizing the problem in a systematic manner -- as opposed to my inadequately formuated and poorly articulated doubts -- is probably half the battle right there.)

I’ve bookmarked the article, and intend to return to it for a more leisurely read at the end of the day. So yes, that’s “twice”, literally!

 

[kellyb]

I've seen people try to debunk the certainty of "I think, therefore I am", but upon closer inspection, all they can do is doubt the nature of our existence (fair enough), not the fact of it altogether.

Glad you liked the article. He articulated very clearly a lot of thoughts I've had over the years. I don't think there is anything that can be done about it, other than to accept it for what it is and take things from there on a case by case basis, day by day.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I have no idea what kind of life-experiences (or perhaps forum-experiences) have led you down this path.

Literally seeing this exact same thread started a dozen times by a dozen different people all who act like they're the first person to do it and they all having the exact same outcome.

So just come out with it. What's your gris-gris? What's the opinion, stance, idea, concept, belief structure or whatever that you think science/skepticism is "wrong" or "fetished" or "misused" or whatever about?

What do you think science/skepticism is doing wrong that needs to be fixed?

 

[Dancing David]

The "skepticism" displayed in this subforum is of poor quality. Ignorance of basic philosophical concepts is rampant, and celebrated as a virtue. It's no wonder the people who made this forum vibrant in its heyday are now MIA.

What made this forum vibrant was the trolls, they always generated the bulk of the posts (check JeromedaGnome for example, or Franko), the decline in posters has much more to do with a change to social media and comment sections than anything else.

Amanda Knox arguments and Bigfoot follies led to this boom one particular year. One has waned the other has shifted to other media.

 

[Chanakya]

I think they're one and the same.



I'm with you.




(...)




Yeah, me, too.

Thank you, kellyb! It’s extremely gratifying to have you agree with my ideas about skepticism!

But pardon me, I have to ask : Would you say that your view (and mine) are, well, the mainstream view? I ask, because Tommy Jeppesen, who appears (basis his post) far better versed with the formal technical/philosophical aspects of skepticism than I myself am, seems to hold very different views about these basic things. His views seem grounded on established philosophical concepts, while what I myself said there was merely my instinctive attempts at formulating my thoughts, no more. Now I have no issues at all with holding non-mainstream views if they appear reasonable to me personally -- after all, I suppose skepticism itself is a decidedly non-mainstream idea/philosophy, within the larger society -- but should my/our views turn out to be other than mainstream, then I’d like to at least examine the mainstream view as best I can before deciding to stick with my own instinctive formulations. That is why I ask : do you think most skeptics would be in agreement with you and me about these basic formulations?

I think we're generally kind of right, but often not, too.

In that case, if we’re sometimes right to trust experts and specialists and sometimes not, and since we cannot possibly know in advance when it is that we’re right and when not, where does that leave us? In effect that would mean that we can never trust them!

I'm reminded here of this interesting insight written by Paul Krugman, referring to "the dismal science", economics:

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/a-dark-age-of-macroeconomics-wonkish/

I'm sorry, I don't get it. In what way does what you quote (or the larger article) relate to what we were discussing?

Can I get an example of a generally accepted position within "science" (at the level of the individual, or otherwise?)

Well, anything and everything.

Starting with banal things, like carb-loading-can-be-effective / carbs-are-poison-keep-off-them ; going on to more science-y but still immediate issues like “is drug X or treatment X effective in certain specific scenarios?”, or “can tobacco smoke kill you?”, or “might cell phone radiation harm you”, or even “might extended smartphone use actually end up rewiring your neural routes?” ; and going on to deeper questions (or at least, less immediate issues) like “is the universe expanding, or contracting, or static”, or … well, just about anything and everything!

And not excluding things on which there is unanimous “expert consensus”. (I add this last qualification because I see that the examples I gave above, wholly random examples, are issues on which there is -- or used to be -- some amount of ambiguity.)

I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take in non-emergency situations.

Is it?

I mean, I’m myself arguing that perhaps such all-round skepticism (of all drugs and treatments, in this case) may (just “may”) be reasonable, even when there is complete unanimity among the experts/doctors about such drug/treatment. Nevertheless having you agree so fully with this extravagant position compels me to go all devil’s-advocate for a space and ask : How could that possibly be practicable?

Get good at using google scholar, and find some experts you trust, as well.

Oh, I see you’ve already answered that question here. The answer to “How could that be practicable?” Turn amateur scholar/researcher, is what you're saying.

Sounds reasonable, for most everyday issues, and within reasonable bandwidths of skepticism. But does this approach go far enough?

I mean, doing this deeply enough to be meaningful, for every ailment that we or our loved ones are afflicted with, that is a tall enough task. But importantly, this skepticism about medical treatment specifically, that was just an example. We’d have to do it for each and every thing we encounter, then, wouldn’t we? Is that even possible?

On the other hand, I suppose we shouldn’t be whining about not being able to personally validate something unless we’re willing to put in the effort to remedy that situation. So I suppose what you suggest is actually the right ‘solution’ : that is : Choose your battles (that is, choose what issues you’d like to invest effort in to validate), and then just go ahead and do it, as best you can.

I suppose that’s all there is to it.

Thanks for helping me think this through!

What's an example of vanilla skepticism? Hasn't science been applied to at least some extent to almost every possible area of human existence?

That was in response to Tommy Jeppesen, who expressed the view that scientific skepticism is wholly different from individual, personal skepticism. I was trying to point out to him my (instinctive) view that empiricism is probably a part of personal skepticism (as opposed to skepticism in a strictly/formally scientific setting -- that distinction was his).

But since you ask, and having thought on this after reading what you’ve posted : What about some criminal proceedings in court, where you’re trying to establish if so-and-so was at such-and-such place at some time. While “science” (in the form of technology) may indirectly come into play in establishing this at times, nevertheless this remains essentially a case of vanilla skepticism, nothing to do with science per se.

I struggle to think of any other example. In any case, I used that term (vanilla skepticism) to differentiate it from scientific skepticism. If there is no such (essential, basic, fundamental) difference, as you’ve said, then we won’t need different terms at all.

 

[Chanakya]

I normally only see the word "scientism" used by somebody whose pet woo has been found wanting.

I agree.

What do you understand "scientism" to be, and what examples are there of "fetishising science"?

Another poster had suggested to me that I look up the word “scientism”, following on what they had to say on skepticism. While I’m aware of the word, of course, and the usual context of its use, I saw no reason not to take their advice. A quick Google search yielded some interesting articles that go into some detail about the provenance and uses of that term.

I can refer you to these three articles from my cache history :

https://www.aaas.org/page/what-scientism ;
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism ;
and Rational Wiki : https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientism.​

As you’ve rightly observed, the term “scientism” refers to over-reach of science, and is generally used by those with some species of irrational belief. But leaving that controversial side of the term aside, I myself might use that term to refer to, say, to take a random example, dietary fads that apparently carry the imprimatur of science, but which turn out to be far more ambiguous/inconclusive (in terms of actual science) than their promoters had led one to believe. Although I suppose it would be more correct to term things like these simply as ‘bad science’, since “scientism” carries distinct overtones, especially in a forum like this one where most people are aware of those overtones. Informally, generally, I suppose I’d use the term “scientism” for things like that, despite knowing the term isn’t technically quite correct.

If you’re looking for more formal examples, I suggest google-fu. Lots of likely links in the first page itself (only three of which I actually followed up on myself).

Quite possibly, but I was trying to understand what it was he appeared to be agreeing with, particularly with the addition of fetishes (not that there's anything wrong with that...).

Fetishizing science is definitely a thing. Perhaps not so much in these forums, where most people self-describe as skeptics, and given the well-above-average knowledge and awareness about these things of most folks here, but out there in the wider world it’s definitely a thing.

I’d mentioned dietary fads earlier. Advertisements sometimes sell food supplements using models wearing lab coats (to suggest that this is “scientific”). You know, things like that. I’m sure you’d have come across instances like these. And it isn’t always transparent play-acting before the camera (not that even play-acting in advertisements is always transparent to all people ; I mean, people obviously buy into it at some level, else these odious ads would stop being made). Expensive pedagogical tools marketed for very small children, to take another example that comes to mind, tools that purport to be fully scientific (as in, scientifically proven to be effective), but which, on closer inspection, turn out to be ambiguous and experimental at best. Fetishizing science is big business!

 

[Chanakya]

Yes. Skepticism means refusing to believe something without evidence. When we believe an evidenced claim, we're being skeptical. The trick is to be able to abandon that belief when we find the evidence to be faulty or when better evidence presents itself.

I think there was a time when evidence showed the earth was the center of the universe. Then further experiments showed otherwise. Changing one's mind to fit new evidence is the essence of skepticism.

Do we rely on others to gather and vouch for that evidence? Yes. But we still demand they show it to us, and that other scientists review their work and, best of all, repeat their results.

I don't think that's a bug in skepticism. I think it's a feature of our social nature.

Agreed with all of that, except for the conclusion you seem to draw from it. I mean the last two sentences, highlighted.

True, it is a feature of our social nature, how our systems (including our systems for organizing and using knowledge) have evolved. On the other hand, the fact that individually we're unable to personally validate all but a trivial portion of what comprises our worldview, while this seems to follow directly from how our systems are organized, that's definitely a "bug", I'd say, at least from the point of view the invidual (although not necessarily if you're looking at the larger picture, and speaking from the perspective of society as a whole, or of the human species as a whole).

But no big deal! It was interesting thinking about this (my thanks to the posters who've helped me do that, here!), and the answer/solution seems clear enough : just go ahead and take the time and effort to be skeptical about (and personally validate) whatever you care enough about.

That's a simple thing to say, of course, but in practice it does suggest many things that we (or perhaps I should say "I") can do differently -- or at least, think of doing differently.

 

[kellyb]

But pardon me, I have to ask : Would you say that your view (and mine) are, well, the mainstream view?

I think some of the people who are, for lack of a better word, "skeptifamous" would agree with us. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, et al. As for the average internet person who calls themselves a skeptic, probably not. A lot of people go from dogmatic theism to dogmatic worship of the current scientific consensus, it seems. "Skeptics" are such a non-homogeneous, non-monolithic group, I'm not sure what counts as "mainstream" here, anyway.

That is why I ask : do you think most skeptics would be in agreement with you and me about these basic formulations?

I don't think they'd disagree; I'm not sure most have thought it through, tho, either.

In that case, if we’re sometimes right to trust experts and specialists and sometimes not, and since we cannot possibly know in advance when it is that we’re right and when not, where does that leave us? In effect that would mean that we can never trust them!

Personally, I have a sort of spectrum of "the sciences" in my head, and I almost completely trust physicists on one end, and as the sciences become "softer" I lose a little bit of "blind faith".

I'm sorry, I don't get it. In what way does what you quote (or the larger article) relate to what we were discussing?

This might sound condescending, but I don't mean it to come across that way, but you might have to understand the strangeness of the "science" of economics for it to resonate. It would take a short essay to explain, so, just nevermind. eta: a better Krugman article on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/opinion/20krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Is it?

I mean, I’m myself arguing that perhaps such all-round skepticism (of all drugs and treatments, in this case) may (just “may”) be reasonable, even when there is complete unanimity among the experts/doctors about such drug/treatment. Nevertheless having you agree so fully with this extravagant position compels me to go all devil’s-advocate for a space and ask : How could that possibly be practicable?

How often do people find themselves in need of medication/treatment? For me, it's not often, and I also thoroughly enjoy (to the point of near obsession) the process of evaluating research with a fine tooth comb and comparing and contrasting standards of care globally.

Thanks for helping me think this through!

What about some criminal proceedings in court, where you’re trying to establish if so-and-so was at such-and-such place at some time.

If-then scenarios are logic, which is a crucial part of both everyday skepticism and the scientific process proper, I think. (Back to our leitmotif of "it's all actually pretty much the same thing." )

 

[Chanakya]

The "skepticism" displayed in this subforum is of poor quality. Ignorance of basic philosophical concepts is rampant, and celebrated as a virtue. It's no wonder the people who made this forum vibrant in its heyday are now MIA.

If you're referring to me in this instance (you probably are, I suppose), then you aren't really far of the mark. I'm far less familiar with basic philosophical concepts than many others here. Is such ignorance "rampant" here? I wouldn't know! But speaking for myself, I certainly don't "celebrate as virtue" my lack of this familiarity. But nor am I the least bit apologetic about it. My knowledge base, it is what it is. Within the constraints of the time available to me, and the time and effort I'm willing to devote to this, I'm perfectly willing to learn more about all this.

If you're concerned about falling standards here, then here's something you can actually do about it. Assuming you are yourself up to speed about this, you could make a list of resources that you consider "essential skepticism".

Seriously, I kid not. If you're serious about this, about your concern about quality, that would be a wonderful idea!

Not just a huge random knowledge dump, not just a random dump of links and names of books, but a properly thought out list of links (as well as some books) that discuss all of what you consider basic knowledge that every skeptic ought to be aware of.

If you do this, I cannot promise that I won't post or start similar threads until I've gone through all of them , but I certainly can assure you I'll make use of that list, at my own pace. I'm sure there are others here too, who might find something like this useful.

 

[Chanakya]

Literally seeing this exact same thread started a dozen times by a dozen different people all who act like they're the first person to do it and they all having the exact same outcome.

If this topic has actually been discussed earlier, and if you're actually aware of such discussion, then why not simply point out the threads where this has already been discussed, so that one can go ahead and just read it? That seems to make much more sense than to go on venting unthinkingly (and rudely).

So just come out with it. What's your gris-gris? What's the opinion, stance, idea, concept, belief structure or whatever that you think science/skepticism is "wrong" or "fetished" or "misused" or whatever about?

Regardless of how long you've spent here, or how many times you've posted, your skeptic chops seem suspect. You're like someone who's gone to the zoo and seen monkeys swing from trees, and when you see someone working at the bar at the gym, keep insisting that an ape has broken into the gym. Even when it is clearly pointed out to you more than once that that is not the case, you still refuse to let go of your idea, despite zero evidence backing your idea/claim.

I've nothing against you, Joe. Your egregious and unprovoked rudeness took me by surprise, but perhaps we can still shake hands over this?

What do you think science/skepticism is doing wrong that needs to be fixed?

The egregious discourtesy one sometimes comes across here. But that's more to do with these forums (and perhaps with the Internet in general) than skepticism as such.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

But then a good skeptic even more years ago might have believed that the Bible explained why flies (and men) are born, right?

Or that Zeus ... Thor ... Vishnu ... Mohammed ... those unspeakable Mayan/Incan gods apparently thirsting for human blood ... <<insert whatever absurd belief system>> -------- would a good skeptic, wholly immersed in those cultures, have believed all of that, too, then?

If he had to question all of this nonsense surrounding him, then he'd end up being this crazy conspiracy-theory-mongering lunatic! ...snip...

As I said being a skeptic does not mean you are always right nor that your opinions or conclusions are sound.

...snip...

Incidentally : No, I'm not actually considering going all skeptical about whether it is actually my typing on my keyboard that is producing those words at that server there! Just trying to think this through in some ideal/idealized situation.

And in my view that is the point you are getting caught up in and coming a cropper, an idealized situation is not a real situation that will ever happen nor will it ever exist so what does it matter if "skepticism" somehow breaks down in that situation?

 

[Darat]

The "skepticism" displayed in this subforum is of poor quality. Ignorance of basic philosophical concepts is rampant, and celebrated as a virtue. It's no wonder the people who made this forum vibrant in its heyday are now MIA.

That is so cute.

 

[Thor 2]

The "skepticism" displayed in this subforum is of poor quality. Ignorance of basic philosophical concepts is rampant, and celebrated as a virtue. It's no wonder the people who made this forum vibrant in its heyday are now MIA.

That is so cute.

You have to hand it to Fudbucker. Such a way with words, although the message being relayed is elusive. If I may be so bold to decipher.

The original vibrant guys are gone and now we have a lesser quality poster taking over. The evidence for this is overwhelming, given the small number who agree with Fudbucker. Skepticism has lost its way folks ........ where did those vibrant dudes go one has to wonder.

 

[kellyb]

I remember the good ole days mostly being rabid anti-theism (the never-ending "Is religion child abuse?" debate, etc) plus trolls, mostly.

We did have more good consciousness discussions, tho.

 

[The Norseman]

Ah, sniffing thinner, is it? That would explain your remarkably discourteous posts (the discourtesy all the more remarkable because it is wholly unprovoked), with these wholly unsupported accusations and insinuations :

As you can see, if at all you can get yourself to think clearly, none of what you’ve said here has any bearing with anything I have said. What you’re attacking is some twisted strawman that you seem to have set up, for reasons best known to you, immediately after reading my OP (yours was the first response to the OP), and which twisted strawman you seem unable to shake off from you.

I have no idea what kind of life-experiences (or perhaps forum-experiences) have led you down this path, but whatever it is, I don’t think making a habit of either substance abuse, or of demented and discourteous venting online, can possibly do you any good.

You know, you really can't take on the victim role while dishing it out unless you don't mind really killing your credibility.

 

[LarryS]

Back to the OP (this being a religion/philosophy forum) and the claim that all religions have in common, which stated in the language of the Bible - - - as 'Original Sin', or the first or most fundamental mistake or error - - - is the thinking that we are separate individual consciousnesses, and the immediate consequences of this error being the ancillary claim that there is a physical shared world.
All other claims or beliefs, for example that coffee is good for one's health, or coffee is bad for one's health, or the universe is 13.7 billion years old, etc.; these are all conventional beliefs and they are easy to switch on and off.
Now the belief that we are a separate parcel of consciousnesses, and that there's a shared physical world, these beliefs are common sense, right? And anyone who would not accept these beliefs would have to go against a whole culture of programming and conditioning. These beliefs take practice to undo - for those crazy enough to even begin. However, this is the height of skepticism.

 

[StackOverflow]

Back to the OP (this being a religion/philosophy forum) and the claim that all religions have in common, which stated in the language of the Bible - - - as 'Original Sin', or the first or most fundamental mistake or error - - - is the thinking that we are separate individual consciousnesses, and the immediate consequences of this error being the ancillary claim that there is a physical shared world.
All other claims or beliefs, for example that coffee is good for one's health, or coffee is bad for one's health, or the universe is 13.7 billion years old, etc.; these are all conventional beliefs and they are easy to switch on and off.
Now the belief that we are a separate parcel of consciousnesses, and that there's a shared physical world, these beliefs are common sense, right? And anyone who would not accept these beliefs would have to go against a whole culture of programming and conditioning. These beliefs take practice to undo - for those crazy enough to even begin. However, this is the height of skepticism.

Well, aren't you an edgy individual. Questioning absolutely everything. What a rebel.

 

[psionl0]

< . . . much snipped . . . >

< . . . come to think of it, ALL of it snipped . . . >

A subjective examination of the content of your wordy opening post would lead one to make a hypothetical inference that you have neither received personal education nor learned in a centre of educational advancement to gain an appreciation of the fact that the character count or the word count of a prosaic article of text or a sub-article of text does not necessarily have a positive correlation with the intended impartation of the ideas that circulate from within your mind and the subset of said ideas that you intend that the reader of your article to absorb and gain a similar understanding of these ideas through an examination of the text that you constructed.

(verbosity =/= clarity).

That said, it is true that we can not comprehensively test everything that we are told so some of it has to be taken on faith.

We like to think that we are rational creatures, impartially testing everything that we learn and objectively deciding which things are true and which are false.

The reality is that we decide in advance what we are going to believe then we look for evidence that confirms this belief.