Is "True Skeptic" a fallacy?

[Interesting Ian]

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

I seem to recall you posting somethinglike:

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?

Don't worry, I'm not staying.

As I've said before, dictionaries do not dictate the usage of language, rather they follow the usage of language. We require 2 words. One that describes a person who suspends judgement on beliefs which people tend to unquestioningly hold. In other words they tend to question beliefs which are not, on the whole, generally seriously questioned and are simply implicitly assumed. It is getting more and more common to use the word "sceptic" to describe such a person. The other word we need is to describe a person who, for whatever reason, is committed and convinced of the general correctness of the current western Weltanschauung. It is now common to use the word "skeptic" to describe such a person.

There is no similarity at all in these 2 distinct meanings, and it causes no end of confusion -- as is evidenced in this very thread -- to use the one word to label these 2 distinct positions.

Let's take an example. Skeptics implicitly suppose that philosophical materialism must characterise reality. In particular consciousness or the experiencer must be as physical as that which is experienced through the senses. This then determines their beliefs regarding phenomena or hypotheses contrary to materialism eg "life after death", paranormal phenomena, the metaphysical implications of quantum mechanics etc. But very little in the way of justification is given for supposing philosophical materialism is correct.

Sceptics, on the other hand, are the diametric opposite. The very essence of their position means that they do not simply unquestioningly accept prevailing beliefs. They do not simply believe in something purely because it happens to be fashionable to do so. No, they only go by what the reason and evidence suggests.

Most people on here are skeptics. A few are sceptics but they're in the minority.

I intend to continue to use these 2 words in the senses I have outlined.

 

[BS Investigator]

That renders your definition to be:

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

Since when is hearsay evidence that is well-grounded in self-correcting, peer-reviewed science that can withstand the scrutiny of the global scientific community?

Hearsay is one of the lowest forms of evidence. And while it might be fine for establishing the validity of ordinary claims (I drank water yesterday) it is not accepted for extraordinary claims (With a wave of my hand I turned water into wine yesterday).

When was the last time a scientist made an extraordinary claim, and then the global scientific community just took their word for it?

 

[Darat]

Since when is hearsay evidence that is well-grounded in self-correcting, peer-reviewed science that can withstand the scrutiny of the global scientific community?

Hearsay is one of the lowest forms of evidence. And while it might be fine for establishing the validity of ordinary claims (I drank water yesterday) it is not accepted for extraordinary claims (With a wave of my hand I turned water into wine yesterday).

When was the last time a scientist made an extraordinary claim, and then the global scientific community just took their word for it?

Hearsay just means “second-hand information” (there are probably strict legal definitions as well).

It would seem that you did not realise what your definition of “true sceptic” actually meant, after asking i.e. someone who forms conclusions based on hearsay.

 

[drkitten]

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

The same as they require for non-extraordinary claims. Which include things like personal experience (you have no "scientific" evidence about how people perceive colors, for example), witness reports (part of the evidence Halley used for identifying the comet that bears his name are the historical records of comet appearances, including the rather famous one in the Bayeux tapestry. But that's by no means "scientific."), well-founded extensions of legitimate theory (I've never, in my life, seen a proof that 751 > 23, for example. I doubt anyone's actually proved the correctness of that particular statement, although it wouldn't be hard to do. But I'm willing to believe it on the basis of a more general theoretical understanding of the number system.)

 

[drkitten]

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

As I've said before, dictionaries do not dictate the usage of language, rather they follow the usage of language. We require 2 words. One that describes a person who suspends judgement on beliefs which people tend to unquestioningly hold. In other words they tend to question beliefs which are not, on the whole, generally seriously questioned and are simply implicitly assumed. It is getting more and more common to use the word "sceptic" to describe such a person. The other word we need is to describe a person who, for whatever reason, is committed and convinced of the general correctness of the current western Weltanschauung. It is now common to use the word "skeptic" to describe such a person.

If it's so common, you should be able to indicate some instances where it's used this way.

Dictionaries follow the usage of language. Unfortunately, the language is not used in the way that you imagine it is, or there would be spottings of this usage.

As I have said before, I have connections at a few major dictionary publishers. I will be happy to send them the lexicographic evidence recommending such a change in the definition if you can document it. I've made this offer to you before, only to see you fail miserably to support your claim that the word "skeptic" is actually used in such a way.

 

[BS Investigator]

Hearsay just means “second-hand information” (there are probably strict legal definitions as well).

It would seem that you did not realise what your definition of “true sceptic” actually meant, after asking i.e. someone who forms conclusions based on hearsay.

 

[Blondin]

sceptic shmeptic

The word I have a problem with is "believe". Many people seem to jump to the conclusion that if you don't believe something then you must believe the opposite. If I don't believe there is a God then it doesn't necessarily follow that I believe there is no God. It also doesn't mean I have any evidence to support the non-existence of God. All it means is that the notion of God seems less plausible to me than the no-God scenario.

People can be sceptical of many things but, for some reason, consider something plausible that I consider totally implausible and vice versa. Most of the arguments I have witnessed, both on this forum and in real life, are not really about the existence or impossibility of the paranormal (or whatever) but about whether a particular event, story, etc. constitutes evidence or not.

It seems to me that you can't label anybody a skeptic/sceptic/woo-woo except in regard to specific subjects. The difference between us seems to be in what we consider to be the null hypothesis for any given claim. I can't justify why materialism seems more correct and plausible to me but I definitely do not accept any belief or claim because it is prevailing or fashionable.

 

[Darat]

You have defined a "true sceptic" as someone who uses hearsay to determine if something is “true” or not.


(Edited to add is.)

 

[BS Investigator]

You have defined a "true sceptic" as someone who uses hearsay to determine if something is “true” or not.

How does "One who requires valid scientific evidence for extraordinary claims, without exception." ... "evidence that is well-grounded in self-correcting, peer-reviewed science and can withstand the scrutiny of the global scientific community."

turn into...

"...one who uses hearsay to determine if something is “true” or not"?

I have stated clearly that hearsay is not valid scientific evidence for extraordinary claims, but you just keep repeating yourself with no arguments or evidence.

You say I have 'defined a "true sceptic" as someone who uses hearsay to determine if something is “true” or not.'

Where is your evidence to back this up?

 

[Darat]

How does "One who requires valid scientific evidence for extraordinary claims, without exception." ... "evidence that is well-grounded in self-correcting, peer-reviewed science and can withstand the scrutiny of the global scientific community."

turn into...

"...one who uses hearsay to determine if something is “true” or not"?

I have stated clearly that hearsay is not valid scientific evidence for extraordinary claims, but you just keep repeating yourself with no arguments or evidence.

You say I have 'defined a "true sceptic" as someone who uses hearsay to determine if something is “true” or not.'

Where is your evidence to back this up?

Hearsay = second hand information.

You say "evidence that is well-grounded in self-correcting, peer-reviewed science and can withstand the scrutiny of the global scientific community" so unless one is personally conducting research into each and every area that one forms an opinion or conclusion about then one is using second-hand information, therefore your definition of a "True sceptic" is someone who uses hearsay (second-hand information) as evidence to form their conclusions or opinions.

It would seem that your intention with coming up with this definition was to produce a "sceptic" that was somehow distinguishable from other “sceptics” (such as ones who use hearsay to form their conclusions or use other types of evidence and conclude from that evidence that a deity exists), all that you have done so far is produce a definition that can also be worded as “A True Sceptic is someone who accepts hearsay as evidence to form conclusions”.

The fact that you only accept certain kinds of hearsay is neither here nor there a “True Sceptic” is, as defined by you, someone who accepts hearsay as evidence.

 

[m0nngis]

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

Don't worry, I'm not staying.

As I've said before, dictionaries do not dictate the usage of language, rather they follow the usage of language. We require 2 words. One that describes a person who suspends judgement on beliefs which people tend to unquestioningly hold. In other words they tend to question beliefs which are not, on the whole, generally seriously questioned and are simply implicitly assumed. It is getting more and more common to use the word "sceptic" to describe such a person. The other word we need is to describe a person who, for whatever reason, is committed and convinced of the general correctness of the current western Weltanschauung. It is now common to use the word "skeptic" to describe such a person.

There is no similarity at all in these 2 distinct meanings, and it causes no end of confusion -- as is evidenced in this very thread -- to use the one word to label these 2 distinct positions.

Let's take an example. Skeptics implicitly suppose that philosophical materialism must characterise reality. In particular consciousness or the experiencer must be as physical as that which is experienced through the senses. This then determines their beliefs regarding phenomena or hypotheses contrary to materialism eg "life after death", paranormal phenomena, the metaphysical implications of quantum mechanics etc. But very little in the way of justification is given for supposing philosophical materialism is correct.

Sceptics, on the other hand, are the diametric opposite. The very essence of their position means that they do not simply unquestioningly accept prevailing beliefs. They do not simply believe in something purely because it happens to be fashionable to do so. No, they only go by what the reason and evidence suggests.

Most people on here are skeptics. A few are sceptics but they're in the minority.

I intend to continue to use these 2 words in the senses I have outlined.

Heh. This says a lot about you, Ian.

The fact that you're proposing to take one word, force it to mean two wholly different things, and not even stopping to think that they are still pronounced exactly the same, tells me that you don't have much interaction with other people in real life. You know, talking to people using your mouth, not your fingers...

How are people going to understand the difference between 'sceptic' and 'skeptic' in an oral situation? Good luck.

Oh yeah, and, fat chance people are going to take linguistical arguments serious from a person who doesn't even know the definition for "common". You know, the fact that you and perhaps two other woos on this forum have tried to start this lame "skeptic/sceptic" trend does not make it a common usage...

Edited to change "started" into "tried to start" as that is way more correct.

 

[Ernesto]

Maybe I'm missing something here.

You know I am amazed at the flack BS Investigator is coming under on his various threads for putting forward, what seems to be two very simple ideas:

-That if you believe something to be the case, you need some evidence to back it up.

-That there is no evidence for the existence of god.

I didn't think these two ideas were so contraversial.

Keep up the good work BSI.

Back to the peanut gallery (crunch).

 

[Darat]

Re: Maybe I'm missing something here.

You know I am amazed at the flack BS Investigator is coming under on his various threads for putting forward, what seems to be two very simple ideas:

I don’t see it as being flak, he's trying to come up with a definition for something that he believes is important and can be defined, I've just been if you like testing the definitions he's come up with.

-That if you believe something to be the case, you need some evidence to back it up.

-That there is no evidence for the existence of god.

...snip...

There is plenty of evidence that god(s) exist however whether that is evidence that you, BS Investigator or I would accept is another matter but you can't claim it doesn’t exist.

 

[The Kilted Yaksman]

A true sceptic would at least consider the possibility that this thread was a hoax.

As I must also consider the possibility that you are a hoax. Heck, I might even be a hoax...

 

[BS Investigator]

Hearsay = second hand information.

You say "evidence that is well-grounded in self-correcting, peer-reviewed science and can withstand the scrutiny of the global scientific community" so unless one is personally conducting research into each and every area that one forms an opinion or conclusion about then one is using second-hand information, therefore your definition of a "True sceptic" is someone who uses hearsay (second-hand information) as evidence to form their conclusions or opinions.

It would seem that your intention with coming up with this definition was to produce a "sceptic" that was somehow distinguishable from other “sceptics” (such as ones who use hearsay to form their conclusions or use other types of evidence and conclude from that evidence that a deity exists), all that you have done so far is produce a definition that can also be worded as “A True Sceptic is someone who accepts hearsay as evidence to form conclusions”.

The fact that you only accept certain kinds of hearsay is neither here nor there a “True Sceptic” is, as defined by you, someone who accepts hearsay as evidence.

Uh, okay.

 

[BS Investigator]

Re: Re: Maybe I'm missing something here.

There is plenty of evidence that god(s) exist ....

Such as? If you mean personal anecdotes , yeah, I doubt many of us, including you, would accept that as evidence.

 

[BS Investigator]

Re: Maybe I'm missing something here.

You know I am amazed at the flack BS Investigator is coming under on his various threads for putting forward, what seems to be two very simple ideas:

-That if you believe something to be the case, you need some evidence to back it up.

-That there is no evidence for the existence of god.

I didn't think these two ideas were so contraversial.

Keep up the good work BSI.

Back to the peanut gallery (crunch).

Thanks!

Yeah, as Darat said, I don't mind people trying to punch holes in my ideas. That's the scientific way!

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Maybe I'm missing something here.

Such as? If you mean personal anecdotes , yeah, I doubt many of us, including you, would accept that as evidence.

It's evidence, and almost everyone here would accept it as that.

It's just not very convincing evidence. Darat (and myself), like most people here, are perfectly capable of evaluating the evidence and determining how much credence to give it -- for many of us, that would be "none at all." It's evidence, but it utterly fails to convince or impress.

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Maybe I'm missing something here.

Such as? If you mean personal anecdotes , yeah, I doubt many of us, including you, would accept that as evidence.

That is the only type I am aware of, and yes you are right it is not a standard of evidence I accept as sufficient proof of something like a god or gods.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

m0nngis said:
Oh yeah, and, fat chance people are going to take linguistical arguments serious from a person who doesn't even know the definition for "common". You know, the fact that you and perhaps two other woos on this forum have tried to start this lame "skeptic/sceptic" trend does not make it a common usage...

Welcome!

Someone also suggested "skCeptic." Ha ha. What is it with these people?

~~ Paul