Is skepticism a belief system?

[Thomas]

Its worth repeating what others have stated in this thread: at the very least, skeptical methodology is means to achieve certain beliefs and worldviews, but it doesnt make sense to call the method a belief system in itself.

What do you mean by "method"? "The doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind"? Or a given status quo scientific method?

 

[Pangloss]

Neither, its the scientific method in action

Its worth repeating what others have stated in this thread: at the very least, skeptical methodology is means to achieve certain beliefs and worldviews, but it doesnt make sense to call the method a belief system in itself.

Try as I might to see the logic of the contrary position, my faith in rationalism compels me to believe this to be true.

 

[Thomas]

Hmm.. "the scientific method" eeih? Can I borrow a copy of that book? No, wait, let me borrow four of them, I want to send a copy to David Hume, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.

"Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition." - Thomas Kuhn

Edit: Better make that five copies, Augustus Comte is not to be cheated, he started the whole thing.

There is no universal scientific method, there are some rules of thumb you can follow in a research process, but that's it, just don't expect that other researchers find those rules to be adequate for their particular purpose.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Thomas,

Whats the point on saying that science "does not have a method"? What do you want to mean, exactly?

 

[Pangloss]

I missed reading these posts last visit. They stimulated the response below, which might read as a bit of a ramble, I'm afraid. I guess people will let me know.

Thomas said:

Skepticism is a faith based supremely on laws and evidence, were most other beliefs are based chiefly on assumptions piled upon each other in often obscure and absurd constructs.

then later:

…skepticism is an attitude or state of mind that is believed to be true by the skeptics (including myself).

Bodhi Dharma Zen said:

Skepticism is a state of mind, the quality of doubting any kind of knowledge. I regularly say that science is not a body of beliefs (like some appears to think), but a collection of methodologies.

Well, behind those methodologies is an skeptical state of mind, a kind of ground from where one ask questions.

I disagree in that it is any kind of belief system.

Then Thomas said:

There is no universal scientific method, there are some rules of thumb you can follow in a research process, but that's it,

If skepticism is a set of methodologies for evaluating knowledge, or the state or attitude of mind of doubt that calls upon such methodologies, then it cannot itself be “a” faith. Although it can both be said to proceed from a faith in rationalism, and to support faith in whatever passes the tests.

In theoretical undertakings, both skepticism and science utilize formal logic, and in practice the skeptic can use particular scientific tools or methods in order to test existing claims. But scientific methodology is about a larger enterprise, that also aims to create new knowledge, within a rational framework.

The common fundamental here is faith in the value of a rational framework, and the importance it places on formal logic and material evidence. It seems to me that the issue that needs to be addressed concerns the assertion that ‘the rational framework’, i.e. reason, is superior to – what, intuition? But absence of intuition makes for dull (if occasionally useful) science, and intuition has other practical uses, in being a mental short-cut within which all manner of unseen but effective reasoning can take place. Even ‘woo’ blends intuition with (forms of) reasoning to justify its own manifold faiths, and the claim is often made by woo-disciples that science, skepticism or a particular rational belief is ‘just another faith/belief’ – the equivalence fallacy.

Faith in reason is based on evidence rather than assumptions or intuition, but evidence itself relies on reasoning to make it meaningful. Is this circular? No – because it is simply a formalization of the (usually) unseen neurological processes that make for learning. Experience adds to learning, and by interaction we continuously test the robustness in the natural world of the knowledge we gain about it. It is iterative and, if working soundly, leads to increasing efficacy of interaction.

If we respond falsely to physical signals in the environment, then we are likely to cease to be as successful as the next person or tribe that reads the signals correctly. The challenge is to establish that the evidence with which we work, and the way in which we work with it, is true to the signals – in the end, it is survival that marks the value of our faith, whether in reason or something else.

 

[drkitten]

Hmm.. "the scientific method" eeih? Can I borrow a copy of that book? No, wait, let me borrow four of them, I want to send a copy to David Hume, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.

]"Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition." - Thomas Kuhn

Sigh. Someone else who has read but not understood Kuhn.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas,

Whats the point on saying that science "does not have a method"? What do you want to mean, exactly?

Well, I didn't really say that did I? ..I said that science do indeed have methods, several in fact. That's the point.

Most scientist use a mixture of various methods proposed by different philosophers during the ages, every paradigm has its own variants of these methods, but there is no universal method that all has agreed upon, no actual standards to follow except the given traditions in the given field of research - and the paradigms.

Still, most scientist are convinced that the methods they use will lead them to the truth and pay little or no attention to the fact that their given methods might prove to be inadequate or superfluous in the future.
Science is young, weak and fragile, yet the press and several skeptics are frequently using the term as if it were synonymous with the truth. The scientists and skeptics themselves, are the ones responsible for the fact that we can call them both believers without compromizing reality. Most of them live by the illusion, that if something is scientific, then it must be true.

That is exactly what I mean Bodhi.

 

[drkitten]

The common fundamental here is faith in the value of a rational framework, and the importance it places on formal logic and material evidence. It seems to me that the issue that needs to be addressed concerns the assertion that ‘the rational framework’, i.e. reason, is superior to – what, intuition? But absence of intuition makes for dull (if occasionally useful) science, and intuition has other practical uses, in being a mental short-cut within which all manner of unseen but effective reasoning can take place.

I think few people here would accept the opposition of "intuition" to "rationality." I know I don't.

The opposite of rationality is irrationality. If you define rationality as "belief based on evidence," then its opposite is "belief not based on evidence." (Or similarly for other definitions.) Logic need not be formal, nor need evidence be physical (consider Einstein's thought experiments regarding the nature of light, from which he derived the Special Theory of Relativity). The logic may even be missing entirely -- "I don't know why it works, but I can show you that it does," as in the discovery of the effectiveness of foxglove (digitalis) as a heart agent. or penicillium
(penicillin) as an antibacterial.

 

[Thomas]

Sigh. Someone else who has read but not understood Kuhn.

Sigh, someone else who puts words in mouth. Tell me what exactly I said about Kuhn which is incorrect. Thank you.

 

[drkitten]

Sigh, someone else who puts words in mouth. Tell me what exactly I said about Kuhn which is incorrect. Thank you.

That Kuhn does not accept the existence of "the scientific method."

Kuhn himself has written extensively about this particular misinterpretation of his work; for example, he's very explicit that logical process and methods sustain but do not determine, paradigm choice, and he characterizes most science (the term he uses is "normal" science) as being conducted within "the scientific method" (almost his exact words, as you can see from the quotation you yourself provided). He also explicitly rejects (repeatedly) the relativism and irrealism that has been ascribed to him by the various postmodernist followers such as Lacan and Feyerabend

 

[Thomas]

That Kuhn does not accept the existence of "the scientific method."

I never said that.

I used that quote because it describes how a scientist work under normal conditions. Following the given scientific traditions at hand. I never said that Kuhn claimed that there were no possible universal scientific methods.

You shouldn't assume to know what I think, you should ask instead. Sometimes that's what seperates the wise from the clumsy. Nor should you assume that I haven't understood Kuhn, it's a rather offensive statement to make when it's solely based on assumptions of "what I think".

Kuhn himself has written extensively about this particular misinterpretation of his work; for example, he's very explicit that logical process and methods sustain but do not determine, paradigm choice, and he characterizes most science (the term he uses is "normal" science) as being conducted within "the scientific method" (almost his exact words, as you can see from the quotation you yourself provided). He also explicitly rejects (repeatedly) the relativism and irrealism that has been ascribed to him by the various postmodernist followers such as Lacan and Feyerabend

Thanks for that "introduction to Kuhn", but I already had that back at the university several years ago.

Edit:

Like most people I take pieces from some of the well known philosophers, mix it a little bit with my own ideas, shaken not stirred, but Kuhn is not my hero, he said some correct things, and some incorrect things. Like me, you and everybody else.

 

[Pangloss]

I think few people here would accept the opposition of "intuition" to "rationality." I know I don't.

The opposite of rationality is irrationality. If you define rationality as "belief based on evidence," then its opposite is "belief not based on evidence." (Or similarly for other definitions.) Logic need not be formal, nor need evidence be physical (consider Einstein's thought experiments regarding the nature of light, from which he derived the Special Theory of Relativity). The logic may even be missing entirely -- "I don't know why it works, but I can show you that it does," as in the discovery of the effectiveness of foxglove (digitalis) as a heart agent. or penicillium
(penicillin) as an antibacterial.

Drats. I wrote a really nice response to this, hit the wrong key and fzzzzt, nix.

So here goes again, quick and dirty version:

I don't think an opposite is required when you are dealing with relative merits, superior/inferior - just something along the continuum of rationalism, which I agree intuition is.

I think 'irrational' is not useful here, since to me that suggests someone whose brain has a serious wiring problem with nothing to contribute. If we set up Spock as the archetypal rationalist, the intuitive type might be the person who dressed up as Spock but with whom you could hold a meaningful if weird conversation, but the person who believed he was Spock wouldn't get an invite.

I agree that Einstein offers a good example of intuitive logic at work, but I would place your other examples in the category of 'serendipity' - more a matter of circumstances offering up a solution than non-systematic insight, although the two can certainly mingle. Also, plain boring logic - leavened with varying (and, incidentally, immeasurable) quantities of intuition can deliver results when you don't understand everything there is to know about a process. Arguably, that's what's going on with everything in medicine, to varying extent.

Now, watch the fingers carefully...find "submit reply", then...

 

[drkitten]

I don't think an opposite is required when you are dealing with relative merits, superior/inferior - just something along the continuum of rationalism, which I agree intuition is.

I think 'irrational' is not useful here, since to me that suggests someone whose brain has a serious wiring problem with nothing to contribute.

And I'm perfectly happy characterizing most "woo" beliefs exactly as you describe.

What, exactly, does, for example, "homeopathy" have to contribute? It has zero clinical effect on the patients, substantial financial costs, and in many cases can have serious, even fatal, opportunity costs by persuading people to forego effective, evidence-based, "rational" medicine.

There's nothing "intuitive" about most alternative medicine. It's simply a fraud perpetuated on the gullible. It is, in point of fact, "irrational."

 

[Thomas]

There's nothing "intuitive" about most alternative medicine. It's simply a fraud perpetuated on the gullible. It is, in point of fact, "irrational."

The problem with these products is, that despite the fact that the claims written on the boxes often are farfetched and sometimes downright lies, then they can still have a placebo effect on the individual who uses them. That makes it a dillema of ethics. Should we allow people to lie and sell bogus products if they actually can serve as a trigger for the patients well-being?

I personally don't feel that I have given that particular question enough attention at this point to draw any conclusions. On hold, I would say that it's a though one.

Edit: Another problem is with what you call "effective medicine", because sometimes this medicine is quite ineffective, and it is often at this point that some people resort to alternative (bogus) solutions, and if they're lucky, it might have a placebo effect that will increase their well-being.

 

[Thomas]

Faith in reason is based on evidence rather than assumptions or intuition, but evidence itself relies on reasoning to make it meaningful. Is this circular? No – because it is simply a formalization of the (usually) unseen neurological processes that make for learning. Experience adds to learning, and by interaction we continuously test the robustness in the natural world of the knowledge we gain about it. It is iterative and, if working soundly, leads to increasing efficacy of interaction.

If we respond falsely to physical signals in the environment, then we are likely to cease to be as successful as the next person or tribe that reads the signals correctly. The challenge is to establish that the evidence with which we work, and the way in which we work with it, is true to the signals – in the end, it is survival that marks the value of our faith, whether in reason or something else.

I think most of this post was very sound and reasonable, very well said. Although you almost contradicted me at one point

I picked out this particular part of your post because it reminds me of one of my favorite areas of study, evolutionary psychology. I think you break the way science has come about down to the point here, what I just don't like, is that I can't really place Santa into that equation, I wonder where all the presents then come from every year.. Something is not right about that guys beard any way.

Welcome to the board.

 

[Shrike]

Check the sig. Extrapolate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\/

 

[RockNroll]

Great sig! Summs up my opinion as well.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Is anyone else distressed that a moderator openly admits that he thinks skepticism is a belief system ?

 

[Pangloss]

And I'm perfectly happy characterizing most "woo" beliefs exactly as you describe.

What, exactly, does, for example, "homeopathy" have to contribute? It has zero clinical effect on the patients, substantial financial costs, and in many cases can have serious, even fatal, opportunity costs by persuading people to forego effective, evidence-based, "rational" medicine.

There's nothing "intuitive" about most alternative medicine. It's simply a fraud perpetuated on the gullible. It is, in point of fact, "irrational."

Is homeopathy the exception that proves the rule? The interesting question is, why does it survive in the absence of evidence? I'll accept my own challenge, pop a herbal brain stimulant, say a little prayer, and head into it .

I think that most people who swear by the various snake-oil treatments somehow enjoy the buzz of being 'alternative'. Perhaps it is an example of the human propensity for risk-taking and (intuitive) experimentation which often leads to useful discoveries, sometimes to poisonous ones, but probably much more often, to merely useless ones (I suppose I should also try to fit placebos in there somewhere).

In the period before medical practice became scientific, there was little to distinguish snake-oil from 'the real stuff', so the current problem of the harm done by diversion from effective treatments was close to non-existent.

A part of the 'problem' is also a part of what makes effective medical science work: there's a lot of curative agents to be had from nature. This helps to lend credence to the claims of the herbalists, particularly when coupled with sometimes well-founded prejudices about the hazards of manufactured chemicals and the ambitions of drug companies.

Pre-monotheistic societies were quite good at discovering and using effective plant derivatives, although how many died along the way is a matter of speculation. Stable, unitary social structures possibly assisted in being able to 'weed the poisons' out of the medical kit bag. Nowadays, it's a free-for-all.

Massed animal/human behaviour of all kinds intriguingly appears to be subject to the same mathematical rules. Just as with economic cycles, which can boom and bust through sheer force of an idea, medical fads come and go. People are attracted to optimism, from which booms derive. Alternative medicine has a heap of optimism to offer.

BTW I am regretfully able to offer a solid piece of evidence concerning the harm done by 'alternative medicine', when it is the first port of call: a close relative had a fast-growing and eventually fatal cancer that went undiagnosed for at least 6 months, while refusing to take doctor's advice to undergo tests, instead attending a charlatan. Small comfort that said charlatan has since gone out of business.

 

[Pangloss]

I think most of this post was very sound and reasonable, very well said. Although you almost contradicted me at one point

I picked out this particular part of your post because it reminds me of one of my favorite areas of study, evolutionary psychology. I think you break the way science has come about down to the point here, what I just don't like, is that I can't really place Santa into that equation, I wonder where all the presents then come from every year.. Something is not right about that guys beard any way.

Welcome to the board.

Thanks for the welcome. I don't know what took me so long. I've been a vexatious skeptic since I could talk (so I'm told by those who love and tolerate me).

I always prefer almost-contradiction myself; it provides easy stepping-stones into new understanding (hope that doesn't sound too Californian).

I admit to being one of those people who finds it hard to think about human behaviour without speculating on how it came about. Reading your post before submitting my last one on alternative medicine, probably made me even more conscious of this that usual - note the EP-type hypothesis.

If behaviour didn't evolve, it came from 'poof', and I don't like that idea one little bit. But the field of EP has hitherto had somewhat too much 'P' of the speculative variety to be regarded as true science. It seems now to be moving towards neuropsychology, which brings us to the essential biology. But I wouldn't like to see the fun go out of it altogether.