Is "True Skeptic" a fallacy?

[LostAngeles]

... while the ideal of a "true skeptic" may exists...

(Rule 8) me. I'm going back to grammar school.

 

[Ducky]

(Rule 8) me. I'm going back to grammar school.

This time try not to chase the boys, forget to share and throw spitwads at the teacher

 

[jmercer]

I said it in the other thread; I suppose it bears repeating here.

"True" anything has only one alternative - "False". This becomes an absolute qualifier when applied as an adjective, as it is with "True Skeptic". Therefore, if there are "True Skeptics", anyone who doesn't meet the specific criteria that makes them "True" is a "False Skeptic".

The criteria proposed for true vs false in the OP is the requirement for scientific evidence every single time when an extraordinary claim is made.

Yet there are claims that don't yield themselves to scientific analysis. The problem with the criteria, then, is that it forces a "True Skeptic" to avoid investigating and considering any extraordinary claims that aren't amenable to scientific analysis... such as God, consciousness (so far), free will and other such questions that concern extraordinary things that simply don't fall within the scope of scientific methodology.

It's simply an extreme viewpoint that attempts to redfine skepticism by applying a fundamentalist dogma. And dogma is the antithesis of critical thinking - or so I believe.

 

[Thomas]

It's simply an extreme viewpoint that attempts to redfine skepticism by applying a fundamentalist dogma. And dogma is the antithesis of critical thinking - or so I believe.

While I might agree with your take on the danger of a fundamentalist dogma, I don't think you can apply that to this particular scenario, because Darat's definition of a True Skeptic is correct from a historical point of view. So a True Skeptic actually do, or at least did, exist. I consider myself a skeptic of the classic school, which would make me a True Skeptic from Darat's definition.

The classical skeptics applied doubt to all they could, you can feel free to call that a fundamentalist dogma, but that's the original skepticism. I have made a Universal Truth Machine based on that philosophy, and you can ask it anything you like and it will give you the correct answer

 

[Diamond]

Consider the statement (recently aired on this forum) that "No true JREF member can be a theist". There are many counterexamples to this idea, and Randi sensibly rejected such an idea. Why? Because it is divisive. It excludes people who otherwise would be receptive to what Randi had to say. It presupposes that theism/atheism is an absolute dichotomy , with no shades in between.

"No true skeptic" is exactly the same.

Consider atheism. Randi wrote that there are two types of atheists: those who believe no god exists and those who expect no god exists but are willing to be shown good evidence to the contrary

Randi as frequently described himself as an atheist of the "second kind". Would Randi qualify as a "True Skeptic" as it is defined by the OP?

 

[jmercer]

While I might agree with your take on the danger of a fundamentalist dogma, I don't think you can apply that to this particular scenario, because Darat's definition of a True Skeptic is correct from a historical point of view. So a True Skeptic actually do, or at least did, exist. I consider myself a skeptic of the classic school, which would make me a True Skeptic from Darat's definition.

The classical skeptics applied doubt to all they could, you can feel free to call that a fundamentalist dogma, but that's the original skepticism. I have made a Universal Truth Machine based on that philosophy, and you can ask it anything you like and it will give you the correct answer

No problem with Darat's definition, Thomas - my post was strictly in response to the OP's definition. I should have made that a bit more clear - sorry.

Although, even in Darat's definition, I still feel "True" is a poor adjective. "Strong" or "Dedicated" would be fine. In the context used in this thread, "True" always invokes a black-and-white pass/fail scenario, IMO. That just doesn't match the real world, so I think it's absurd and divisive.

 

[jmercer]

Consider the statement (recently aired on this forum) that "No true JREF member can be a theist". There are many counterexamples to this idea, and Randi sensibly rejected such an idea. Why? Because it is divisive. It excludes people who otherwise would be receptive to what Randi had to say. It presupposes that theism/atheism is an absolute dichotomy , with no shades in between.

"No true skeptic" is exactly the same.

Consider atheism. Randi wrote that there are two types of atheists: those who believe no god exists and those who expect no god exists but are willing to be shown good evidence to the contrary

Randi as frequently described himself as an atheist of the "second kind". Would Randi qualify as a "True Skeptic" as it is defined by the OP?

Good post. No, Randi would not qualify - because he doesn't require scientific evidence. He's perfectly happy to settle for mundane evidence, as in simply catching someone cheating.

 

[jmercer]

Y'know, I have to say something here to BSI. While I don't agree with your position on some of this stuff, the debates you've sparked over it have been great!

 

[BS Investigator]

Re: Re: Is "True Skeptic" a fallacy?

Scepticism is about doubt, a "true sceptic" is someone who doubts everything, whether that be "scientific evidence", the evidence of their own eyes or any other kind of evidence, a true sceptic is someone who holds that nothing can be known for certain, that all knowledge is provisional.

I agree. A true skeptic can be "someone who doubts everything" and holds "that nothing can be known for certain."

That does not contradict: "True Skeptic: One who requires valid scientific evidence for extraordinary claims, without exception." It's just a definition of a certain type of skeptic, a certain level or dedication to skepticism.

This is no different from the Scotsman wanting to exclude from that group (Scotsmen) those in the group who do things he does not want to be associated (who put sugar on their porridge, whatever), and comes up with a new definition, "true Scotsman."

It is different, because being a Scotsman is about where you were born or where you live, not about sugar or porridge. That's the fallacy. But as I pointed out and quoted:

Some elements or actions are exclusively contradictory to the subject, and therefore aren't fallacies. The statement "No true vegetarian would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because ...

Skepticism is about demanding evidence for big claims, so if you demand no valid evidence for a big claim like a guaranteed afterlife, then that belief is exclusively contradictory to being a skeptic. Thus, a True Skeptic would not believe in an afterlife, without valid evidence.

But trying to come up with a term which you think differentiates you from them is, in my view, pointless. And coming up with the term "true skeptic" is simply inviting comparisons to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You might do better to come up with "strong and weak skepticism," as a parallel to "strong and weak atheism" (two other terms I don't care for.

I understand your point. That was the idea: to come up with something akin to "strong atheism" compared to regular atheism. You think True Skeptic invites comparisons to No True Scotsman, and on the surface, you are right. But in the end, True Skeptic is not a fallacy. Thus far, no one has shown it to be a fallacy, as requested in the OP. People have protested that it is divisive, but frankly, it is meant to be.

How can you be a True Skeptic and believe that some guy lived inside of the whale's stomach for three days, or that another guy waved his hands and magically "parted the Red Sea"? It's absurd.

 

[BS Investigator]

Y'know, I have to say something here to BSI. While I don't agree with your position on some of this stuff, the debates you've sparked over it have been great!

Hey thanks! I appreciate very much everyone helping me to sort out these ideas.

jmercer, you are always one to be counted on to jump into the fray!

 

[Thomas]

No problem with Darat's definition, Thomas - my post was strictly in response to the OP's definition. I should have made that a bit more clear - sorry.

Although, even in Darat's definition, I still feel "True" is a poor adjective. "Strong" or "Dedicated" would be fine. In the context used in this thread, "True" always invokes a black-and-white pass/fail scenario, IMO. That just doesn't match the real world, so I think it's absurd and divisive.

I apologize from misunderstanding the intention of your post then, but apart from that..

Agreed in full, "true" is a term that should be avoided as often as possible. And I'm an old school'er, so I would say even in math and logic, and that could spawn a major derail debate, so I'll just refrain from saying that at all

 

[drkitten]

Some have argued that the term "True Skeptic" is a fallacy.

Do you agree?

Definition: True Skeptic: One who requires valid scientific evidence for extraordinary claims, without exception.

Some opponents of the term True Skeptic claim that it falls under the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

With this emendation, it is no longer a True Scotsman fallacy. It's a Fallacy of Incorrect Definition (of course, the incorrect definition is being offered in support of No True Scotsman fallacy).

The definition is incorrect because it requires that skeptics demand "scientific" evidence for all claims, ignoring the fact that there are other sorts of evidence. (This is akin to defining the term "true athlete" as "one who participates in professional sports," and then using it to argue that no True Athlete is an Olympian.)

You admit the falsity of your definition yourself a little later:

Skepticism is about demanding evidence for big claims.

Note the absence of the "scientific" qualifier here.

This point has been made at length by others:

Darat:

Scepticism is about doubt, a "true sceptic" is someone who doubts everything, whether that be "scientific evidence", the evidence of their own eyes or any other kind of evidence.

jmercer:

Randi would not qualify - because he doesn't require scientific evidence. He's perfectly happy to settle for mundane evidence, as in simply catching someone cheating.

 

[BS Investigator]

"valid scientific evidence" simply means valid evidence that will stand up to scientific scrutiny.

If an extraordinary claim has no "valid scientific evidence" then it should not be "believed" by True Skeptics.

What "other sorts of evidence" do you suggest skeptics should require for extraordinary claims?

I am more than willing to redefine True Skeptic if you have better wording, but the point remains the same: Anyone who believes in a guaranteed "afterlife," or that some person "parted the Red Sea" with magic is not a True Skeptic.

 

[Darat]

"valid scientific evidence" simply means valid evidence that will stand up to scientific scrutiny.

If an extraordinary claim has no "valid scientific evidence" then it should not be "believed" by True Skeptics.

What "other sorts of evidence" do you suggest skeptics should require for extraordinary claims?

I am more than willing to redefine True Skeptic if you have better wording, but the point remains the same: Anyone who believes in a guaranteed "afterlife," or that some person "parted the Red Sea" with magic is not a True Skeptic.

You need to provide a definition for “scientific evidence", and then “valid”.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Is "True Skeptic" a fallacy?

Totally disagree. Scepticism is about doubt, a "true sceptic" is someone who doubts everything, whether that be "scientific evidence", the evidence of their own eyes or any other kind of evidence, a true sceptic is someone who holds that nothing can be known for certain, that all knowledge is provisional.

No, he was talking about sKepticism not scepticism.

 

[BS Investigator]

Define valid? Come on.

"valid scientific evidence" = evidence that is well-grounded in self-correcting, peer-reviewed science and can withstand the scrutiny of the global scientific community.

I don't know... something like that.

 

[Doubt]

Re: Re: Re: Is "True Skeptic" a fallacy?

No, he was talking about sKepticism not scepticism.

Quotes from dictionary.com:

3 entries found for sceptic.
scep·tic Audio pronunciation of "sceptic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skptk)
n.

Variant of skeptic.


[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

skep·tic also scep·tic Audio pronunciation of "sceptic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skptk)
n.

1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
3. Philosophy.
1. often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
2. Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? B.C.).

and...

4 entries found for skeptic.
scep·tic Audio pronunciation of "skeptic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skptk)
n.

Variant of skeptic.


[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

skep·tic also scep·tic Audio pronunciation of "skeptic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skptk)
n.

1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
3. Philosophy.
1. often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
2. Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? B.C.).

There is no difference Ian. Just a different spelling. I know some people want to try to create a division where none exists, but don’t try to push that junk on us.

Or would you like to tell us there is a difference between color and colour?

(edited to add bolding)

 

[Darat]

Define valid? Come on.

"valid scientific evidence" = evidence that is well-grounded in self-correcting, peer-reviewed science and can withstand the scrutiny of the global scientific community.

I don't know... something like that.

That renders your definition to be:

True Skeptic: One who requires hearsay for extraordinary claims, without exception.

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is "True Skeptic" a fallacy?

…snip…

There is no difference Ian. Just a different spelling. I know some people want to try to create a division where none exists, but don’t try to push that junk on us.

Or would you like to tell us there is a difference between color and colour?

(edited to add bolding)

Just to add a post I made during one of the regular repetitions of this rather silly subject:

By me - repeat as necessary (eta) From: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870979444

O.E.D

sceptic, skeptic

…snip…

In Fr. The sc is pronounced (s) as in sceptre. In Eng. Direct recourse to Greek produced the pronunciation with (sk). The earliest spelling with sk-, for which cf. SKELETON, occurs in the earliest instance, and has been used occas. by later writers. It is adopted without comment in Johnson’s Dictionary, but did not become general in England; in the U.S. it is the ordinary form. Now usually spelt sceptic in the U.K. and British Commonwealth and skeptic in the U.S.
…snip…

So the USA uses the original spelling and the UK doesn’t.

 

[Donks]

Re: Re: Re: Is "True Skeptic" a fallacy?

No, he was talking about sKepticism not scepticism.

I seem to recall you posting somethinglike:

Don't bother. I've had more than enough of the incredible stupidity, dishonesty, consistently attacking strawman positions to last me several lives. I intend to waste not one more second of talking to concrete blocks -- including you.

I'm gone.

So you decided to waste more seconds talking to concrete blocks, including Darat, just to once again try to make the a distinction that does not exist?