Francois Tremblay
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 307
Skepticism means : EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS require extraordinary evidence. Not "all claims". You don't know the basic definition and yet we all have to listen to you !
Is "True Skeptic" a fallacy?
- Thread starter BS Investigator
- Start date
-
- Tags
- skeptic
Er... no it isn't. All you have posted is a saying and like many sayings it is useful but hardly a definition. I suggest you go and read the article that prewitt81 linked to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism) then you will better understand my comments within the context of the discussion in this thread.
Darat's definition is correct. Skepticism isn't limited to extraordinary claims.
Francois Tremblay
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 307
Again, wrong, and now that you persist in your delusion, I will close the book on it. I am not a skeptic and as such don't really care personally, but most skeptic sites acknowledge that skepticism is only applied to a certain range of dubious or extraordinary claims. To wit :
"We, as skeptics, are left with our key focus undefined. What I'm going to suggest in this paper is that skepticism is (1) a technique, (2) a way of evaluating ideas, and (3) an intellectual tool. In short, skepticism is a technique of intellectual self defense. In other words, skepticism is a way by which people can screen and defend themselves from bad, false or potentially harmful ideas. I choose this definition carefully. Although I do not consider this definition the be-all and end-all of definitions of skepticism, it is useful in many ways.
Why do we need a ``technique of intellectual self defense?'' The answer is simple. We live in the information age. As most of us realize (especially those of us with access to the internet) this could easily be called the ``misinformation age.'' We live in an era where both science, the media and intercultural exchange are increasing at an incredible rate. There has simply been no other era in the history of mankind where individuals have been exposed to such a steady and continuous flow of new ideas on a regular basis. We need a means of filtering this information so that we don't waste time and energy on ineffective, incorrect, inaccurate, misreported or even harmful ideas. Skepticism, as it's commonly described, is such a means of filtering out this ``bad information.''"
http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/ISUNY/Journal/vol4_10.html
"This method is skepticism. Claims, whether they look reasonable or extremely unlikely to be true, will be doubted; however, they will not be denied. A skeptic will then inquire after the truth."
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_is_skepticism.php
"I view skepticism as a method for finding out if a claim has any value by asking questions and considering the evidence for the claim. We become skeptical when a claim does not seem tenable. We approach such a claim with doubt. We want to know more about it."
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=15&fldAuto=65
"Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (UK spelling, scepticism) sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a scientific, or practical, epistemological position (or paradigm) in which one questions the veracity of claims unless they can be scientifically verified. In practice, a scientific skeptic generally focuses on debunking theories which they believe to be far beyond the mainstream of science, as opposed to a professional scientist, who focuses on extending scientific knowledge."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." --Carl Sagan
"What is skepticism? It's nothing very esoteric. We encounter it every day. When we buy a used car, if we are the least bit wise we will exert some residual skeptical powers--whatever our education has left to us. You could say, "Here's an honest-looking fellow. I'll just take whatever he offers me." Or you might say, "well, I've heard that occasionally there are small deceptions involved in the sale of a used car, perhaps inadvertent on the part of the salesperson," and then you do something. You kick the tires, you open the doors, you look under the hood. (You might go through the motions even if you don't know what is supposed to be under the hood, or you might bring a mechanically inclined friend.) You know that some skepticism is required, and you understand why."
-- Carl Sagan
"(...) scientific skepticism addresses testable claims, focusing on those that are controversial because they deal with the paranormal or the fringes of science, areas traditionally lacking adequate scientific rigor."
http://www.csicop.org/si/9907/scientific-skepticism.html
I did find a couple of exceptions, which made absurd claims such as "all propositions require extraordinary evidence". No one really thinks like this, and we do not ask for extraordinary evidence about what our friends had for dinner, because we have no reason to assume they are lying.
"We, as skeptics, are left with our key focus undefined. What I'm going to suggest in this paper is that skepticism is (1) a technique, (2) a way of evaluating ideas, and (3) an intellectual tool. In short, skepticism is a technique of intellectual self defense. In other words, skepticism is a way by which people can screen and defend themselves from bad, false or potentially harmful ideas. I choose this definition carefully. Although I do not consider this definition the be-all and end-all of definitions of skepticism, it is useful in many ways.
Why do we need a ``technique of intellectual self defense?'' The answer is simple. We live in the information age. As most of us realize (especially those of us with access to the internet) this could easily be called the ``misinformation age.'' We live in an era where both science, the media and intercultural exchange are increasing at an incredible rate. There has simply been no other era in the history of mankind where individuals have been exposed to such a steady and continuous flow of new ideas on a regular basis. We need a means of filtering this information so that we don't waste time and energy on ineffective, incorrect, inaccurate, misreported or even harmful ideas. Skepticism, as it's commonly described, is such a means of filtering out this ``bad information.''"
http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/ISUNY/Journal/vol4_10.html
"This method is skepticism. Claims, whether they look reasonable or extremely unlikely to be true, will be doubted; however, they will not be denied. A skeptic will then inquire after the truth."
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_is_skepticism.php
"I view skepticism as a method for finding out if a claim has any value by asking questions and considering the evidence for the claim. We become skeptical when a claim does not seem tenable. We approach such a claim with doubt. We want to know more about it."
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=15&fldAuto=65
"Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (UK spelling, scepticism) sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a scientific, or practical, epistemological position (or paradigm) in which one questions the veracity of claims unless they can be scientifically verified. In practice, a scientific skeptic generally focuses on debunking theories which they believe to be far beyond the mainstream of science, as opposed to a professional scientist, who focuses on extending scientific knowledge."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." --Carl Sagan
"What is skepticism? It's nothing very esoteric. We encounter it every day. When we buy a used car, if we are the least bit wise we will exert some residual skeptical powers--whatever our education has left to us. You could say, "Here's an honest-looking fellow. I'll just take whatever he offers me." Or you might say, "well, I've heard that occasionally there are small deceptions involved in the sale of a used car, perhaps inadvertent on the part of the salesperson," and then you do something. You kick the tires, you open the doors, you look under the hood. (You might go through the motions even if you don't know what is supposed to be under the hood, or you might bring a mechanically inclined friend.) You know that some skepticism is required, and you understand why."
-- Carl Sagan
"(...) scientific skepticism addresses testable claims, focusing on those that are controversial because they deal with the paranormal or the fringes of science, areas traditionally lacking adequate scientific rigor."
http://www.csicop.org/si/9907/scientific-skepticism.html
I did find a couple of exceptions, which made absurd claims such as "all propositions require extraordinary evidence". No one really thinks like this, and we do not ask for extraordinary evidence about what our friends had for dinner, because we have no reason to assume they are lying.
prewitt81
Notoriously Glorious
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,226
Though I have used the term to refer to people, too, skepticism is, more correctly, a tool. We use skepticism in places where we feel it is warranted, and don't where it isn't. I use a dictionary for words I don't understand, but not for all words. That doesn't make me a dictionary.
Since you have recently discovered (in a dictionary, perhaps) your new label, "cynic", you make it a point to tell everyone that you are not a skeptic. Other than to set yourself apart from anyone else (your attitude usually takes care of that), I don't see the point in making the distinction. If you doubt something that is claimed and make your opinion based on the scientific method, you are practicing scientific skepticism.
Since you have recently discovered (in a dictionary, perhaps) your new label, "cynic", you make it a point to tell everyone that you are not a skeptic. Other than to set yourself apart from anyone else (your attitude usually takes care of that), I don't see the point in making the distinction. If you doubt something that is claimed and make your opinion based on the scientific method, you are practicing scientific skepticism.
Ah, ok. Plonk.
I think it really all depends on your point of reference. Extraordinary claims is a subjective term. The people from the 16th century for example would define alot of the stuff we have as extraordinary claims. For me, the supernatural is only science that has not been discovered yet.
Even in math, it depends on the point of reference....
For example, 1+1 =11 is perfectly accurate when you realize you are working in binary. Similarly when we describe things in polar cordinates, we're not changing the nature of a circle, just how we view it.
Once we discover the proper reference point for these extraordinary phenomenon, they will neither be extraordinary, nor claims.
Even in math, it depends on the point of reference....
For example, 1+1 =11 is perfectly accurate when you realize you are working in binary. Similarly when we describe things in polar cordinates, we're not changing the nature of a circle, just how we view it.
Once we discover the proper reference point for these extraordinary phenomenon, they will neither be extraordinary, nor claims.
prewitt81
Notoriously Glorious
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,226
If the supernatural is undiscovered science of some sort, why hasn't the million been won yet? Wouldn't this "science" be testable, repeatable, and verifiable? You apparently believe that evidence for the supernatural is all over the place. I don't, but I'm willing to be shown that I'm wrong.
[nitpick] Also, 1+1 does not equal 3, not even in binary. [/nitpick]
[nitpick] Also, 1+1 does not equal 3, not even in binary. [/nitpick]
I believe it is because the nature of this phenomenon is directly related to chance or the basic randomness of our universe. The zero point energy fluxuation of vacuum space for example.
1+1 = 3 does not make sense in binary or decimal but in another point of reference or notation it is possible. Especially in the field of encryption where one needs to translate from one point of reference to another. We are really just lacking a point of reference to view these supernatural events. If they are truely delusions or halucinations, why does it transcend all races, ages and cultural backgrounds? We can't all be having the same exact delusions can we?
1+1 = 3 does not make sense in binary or decimal but in another point of reference or notation it is possible. Especially in the field of encryption where one needs to translate from one point of reference to another. We are really just lacking a point of reference to view these supernatural events. If they are truely delusions or halucinations, why does it transcend all races, ages and cultural backgrounds? We can't all be having the same exact delusions can we?
prewitt81
Notoriously Glorious
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,226
We're all human and therefore capable of the same types of delusions regardless of our culture. To say that they are exactly the same in all cultures is a stretch. We sometimes jump on the parts that are similar and ignore the differences.
The time factor actually supports my argument more than yours, in my opinion. Ghosts, for example, have been reported for thousands of years. Why does any "evidence" for hauntings, etc. vanish when skeptical scientists become involved?
The time factor actually supports my argument more than yours, in my opinion. Ghosts, for example, have been reported for thousands of years. Why does any "evidence" for hauntings, etc. vanish when skeptical scientists become involved?
Thats just it, the evidence has not vanished. Its been repeated over and over. Those that happen to see it become believers while others who don't dismiss it as delusions. There is a reality show on sci-fi right now called Ghosthunters. They are a group of people who decided to investigate the supernatural using precise documented techniques and video footage. In few of the episodes you could clearly see in the video that nobody was near a door or a chair that moved by itself. If thats not evidence of something I dunno what is. Yet people would dismiss that even though everything is well documented and tested to rule out other possibilities.
Watch that show sometimes. Perhaps you would change your mind.
Watch that show sometimes. Perhaps you would change your mind.
prewitt81
Notoriously Glorious
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,226
I have seen the show. Chairs move in dimly lit rooms with bad cameras recording it all. It's fake. The people presenting it are either tricked constantly or are deceitful, in my opinion. In one episode, the team enlisted the help of a spiritualist who used dowsing rods which supposedly cross near ghosts (makes sense, huh?). That's how things like this work. Speculation upon speculation, pseudoscience used to prove pseudoscience and it's accepted as fact.
This is why people like you don't think there are any evidence. Because you chose to dismiss the evidence as being tricked or deceitful. These people investigate these ghosts without a preformed opinion and try to be as objective as they can in their investigations. If you have seen all of their shows you would know how meticulous they are in trying to prove or disprove something. Most of the time they consider a house not haunted even if a few strange things happened that they could not capture on film or tape recorder. Yes they have a person who used dowsing rods. I saw her on only two of the episodes and it appears that she is not a regular member of their investigation team. Probably something to drum up interest in the show.
Its not speculation, They capture footages, they analyze them, they try to reproduce them through some other way to see if someone could fake them. If you have seen the show as you claimed you would know they do everything they can to provide real proof. They don't even consider energy orbs ghosts because they agree that almost 99% of the time they are particles of dust or tricks of the light picked up by the cameras.
Its not speculation, They capture footages, they analyze them, they try to reproduce them through some other way to see if someone could fake them. If you have seen the show as you claimed you would know they do everything they can to provide real proof. They don't even consider energy orbs ghosts because they agree that almost 99% of the time they are particles of dust or tricks of the light picked up by the cameras.
prewitt81
Notoriously Glorious
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,226
I admit that I don't watch the show all the time. My intelligence was insulted at one point when two of the team blasted a third for being the least bit skeptical about some very poor quality footage. If they can't find alternate explanations for what they call ghosts, they either don't try hard enough or they're just trying to make good television.
Let's assume for a moment that ghosts do exist. Do they have nothing better to do than move chairs in dark rooms in front of video cameras? I have a friend with similar beliefs so I know how this is going to end up. You believe so strongly that no amount of reasoning is going to change your mind. When one "haunting" is proven to be a hoax, you move on and can't wait to find another event to start believing in. Your faith in mankind is noble ("surely people wouldn't lie for fame or ratings"), but naive. Either nobody stressed that ghosts were right up there with Santa and the Easter Bunny during your formative years, or something traumatic or dramatic happened to you and it was easier to hop on the belief train than find a logical explanation.
You're on my apology list should I ever encounter a ghost, but don't wait up too late.
Let's assume for a moment that ghosts do exist. Do they have nothing better to do than move chairs in dark rooms in front of video cameras? I have a friend with similar beliefs so I know how this is going to end up. You believe so strongly that no amount of reasoning is going to change your mind. When one "haunting" is proven to be a hoax, you move on and can't wait to find another event to start believing in. Your faith in mankind is noble ("surely people wouldn't lie for fame or ratings"), but naive. Either nobody stressed that ghosts were right up there with Santa and the Easter Bunny during your formative years, or something traumatic or dramatic happened to you and it was easier to hop on the belief train than find a logical explanation.
You're on my apology list should I ever encounter a ghost, but don't wait up too late.
Ah, but there is. Those criteria might not be very clear. They may not be consciously understood. But if we can recognize something as belonging to a group, we've necessarily used criteria to evaluate that thing.
I don't mean to "re-rail" the thread, but wouldn't whether or not "no true skeptic" is really the same as the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" depend on who one was excluding from the group "skeptic?" In other words, it would depend on "Y" in the sentence "X isn't a true skeptic because no true skeptic would Y." The fallacy is when "Y" has nothing to do with the definition of "skeptic."
According to at least one common definition, a skeptic is simply one who doubts (either in general or towards a specific subject).
So, if the statement is "X isn't a true skeptic when it comes to Y because no true skeptic would believe Y without doubt" then that isn't a "No True Scotsman Fallacy" (but might be a false statement unless X indeed believes Y without any doubt).
Less clear would be the more general statement "X isn't a true skeptic at all because no true skeptic would believe Y without doubt." This would be the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" if being a skeptic doesn't require one to have doubt about everything (as the above definition indicates).
I generally see the "no true skeptic" argument used in reference to theists, specifically to indicate that theists can't be "true skeptics." Since theists can believe in God without claiming to know for certain that God exists (just as atheists can believe there are no gods without claiming to know for certain that no gods exist) then to say that a theist isn't a "true skeptic" seems to fit the definition of "No True Scottsman Fallacy." Neither having a belief in God or having a belief that there are no gods is any indication as to whether or not the believer questions their belief.
By the same token, either a theist or an atheist who held their belief to be fact without any doubt would not fit the definition of "skeptic" when it comes to belief in a god but could potentially still be a skeptic if they held doubt about other matters. By that definition, nearly everyone is a skeptic since nearly everyone has doubt about something.
As another poster said, the terms "skeptic" and "skepticism" are really only useful when used in reference to a particular subject, and even then skepticism is a matter of degree. One person may not be as skeptical as another person when it comes to a particular subject (i.e. they may not hold their belief up to the same scrutiny as another person).
-Bri
According to at least one common definition, a skeptic is simply one who doubts (either in general or towards a specific subject).
So, if the statement is "X isn't a true skeptic when it comes to Y because no true skeptic would believe Y without doubt" then that isn't a "No True Scotsman Fallacy" (but might be a false statement unless X indeed believes Y without any doubt).
Less clear would be the more general statement "X isn't a true skeptic at all because no true skeptic would believe Y without doubt." This would be the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" if being a skeptic doesn't require one to have doubt about everything (as the above definition indicates).
I generally see the "no true skeptic" argument used in reference to theists, specifically to indicate that theists can't be "true skeptics." Since theists can believe in God without claiming to know for certain that God exists (just as atheists can believe there are no gods without claiming to know for certain that no gods exist) then to say that a theist isn't a "true skeptic" seems to fit the definition of "No True Scottsman Fallacy." Neither having a belief in God or having a belief that there are no gods is any indication as to whether or not the believer questions their belief.
By the same token, either a theist or an atheist who held their belief to be fact without any doubt would not fit the definition of "skeptic" when it comes to belief in a god but could potentially still be a skeptic if they held doubt about other matters. By that definition, nearly everyone is a skeptic since nearly everyone has doubt about something.
As another poster said, the terms "skeptic" and "skepticism" are really only useful when used in reference to a particular subject, and even then skepticism is a matter of degree. One person may not be as skeptical as another person when it comes to a particular subject (i.e. they may not hold their belief up to the same scrutiny as another person).
-Bri
BS Investigator
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 330
You're a moderator here? And you believe in "ghosts"? There is zero valid scientific evidence for "ghosts." Does James Randi know that you believe in so-called "ghosts", because if you told him face to face he would probably have a heart attack. I suppose, based on your logic, you must also believe in "UFOs" and "Alien Abductions," since "lots and lots of people report the evidence for them."
BS Investigator
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 330
The no true Scotsman fallacy does not apply to True Skeptic, as I have already pointed out several times, with strong evidence.
I think we can all agree that a vegetarian who goes for many years or decades without ever eating any meat is more of a "true vegetarian" than one who eats McDonalds hamburgers three times a week, but otherwise abstains. To dispute that is silly.
I think we can all agree that a vegetarian who goes for many years or decades without ever eating any meat is more of a "true vegetarian" than one who eats McDonalds hamburgers three times a week, but otherwise abstains. To dispute that is silly.
prewitt81
Notoriously Glorious
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,226
New definition time!
Super Skeptic (soo' pƏr skep' tik) - those skeptics that take absolutely nothing for granted and are therefore way more skeptical than "true" skeptics. Normal skeptics aren't even on the map compared to these guys. I'm talking get-a-DNA-sample-from-your-wife-every-morning-to-prove-it's-her skeptical.
I can create an arbitrary definition which claims superiority of thought, too.
I guess even better would be the Hyper Mega Multi Orgasmoskeptic which doubts even the existance of super skeptics. But then Cosmo Deluxe UltraSuperlative Skeptics doubt that they are even doubting anything without a complete understanding of brainwave patterns.
I can keep going. Does it really make any difference or further the cause to classify some people as skeptics and others as pretty skeptics with sugar on top? Not really. So you don't get to coin a new phrase and you're not immediately hoisted on the intellectual shoulders of the JREF Forum members. It's ok, there's still lots of time for that. Don't taint your first few months on here hanging on to a BS definition that doesn't do jack crap anyways.
Super Skeptic (soo' pƏr skep' tik) - those skeptics that take absolutely nothing for granted and are therefore way more skeptical than "true" skeptics. Normal skeptics aren't even on the map compared to these guys. I'm talking get-a-DNA-sample-from-your-wife-every-morning-to-prove-it's-her skeptical.
I can create an arbitrary definition which claims superiority of thought, too.
I guess even better would be the Hyper Mega Multi Orgasmoskeptic which doubts even the existance of super skeptics. But then Cosmo Deluxe UltraSuperlative Skeptics doubt that they are even doubting anything without a complete understanding of brainwave patterns.
I can keep going. Does it really make any difference or further the cause to classify some people as skeptics and others as pretty skeptics with sugar on top? Not really. So you don't get to coin a new phrase and you're not immediately hoisted on the intellectual shoulders of the JREF Forum members. It's ok, there's still lots of time for that. Don't taint your first few months on here hanging on to a BS definition that doesn't do jack crap anyways.
I am one of the admins however I should point out the JREF does not require any member of the Mod Team to subscribe to any particular dogma or belief.
And I am absolutely certain that Randi believes in ghosts in exactly the same way I do.
I do also believe in UFOs, and again I am certain that Randi also believes in UFOs in exactly the same way I do.
As for "Alien Abductions" - no I do not believe in them, I come to that conclusion using exactly the same critical thinking that leads me to the conclusion that ghosts and UFOs exist.
Seriously, you seem to have not read my entire post.