Is "True Skeptic" a fallacy?

[El_Spectre]

"True Skeptic" shall remain a fallacy so long as we try to impose it on others.

Look, we're just smart apes... we have different backgrounds and interpretations. To insist on a hardass definition (and even worse, to condemn those who disagree) is not useful.

We have religious folks around here who are highly skeptical. Now, I don't understand that (I'm atheistic - I don't believe), anymore than I understand the hardcore "There Is No God (tm)" crowd. Nonetheless, for most purposes, we all agree, and I can live with that.

We have to be very careful to NOT become dogmatic in our skepticism... for example, do ghosts (god, crop circles, bigfoot) exist? I doubt it, there's no good evidence. But to outright proclaim that someting is not, can can never be true (and won't be considered in the future if new evidence appears) ? For that you need a tall hat and a bulletproof car.

BSI, I know your intentions are probably good, but let it go man... you're not gonna be able to force everyone to agree... finding a middle ground you can live with might be a better idea.

 

[Bri]

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.

You may believe that you have "strong evidence" but I believe the evidence against your position is much stronger. The "No True Scotsman Fallacy" occurs when you try to place a restriction on a group that has nothing to do with the definition of that group. The definition of "skeptic" does not indicate that the person must be a "perfect" skeptic in all instances. The definition of "vegetarian" on the other hand, does indicate that the person obstains from eating meat. It's that simple.

You are using the term "true skeptic" to mean a "perfect" skeptic. There are no "true skeptics" by your definition, although there are "true vegetarians." You also made the statement that "we all can agree that" one person might be more of a "true vegetarian" than another. How is it possible to be more perfect than someone else, when the whole point of "true vegetarian" or "true skeptic" is to lump certain people into a category and exclude all others? This makes any definition of "true skeptic" that you can come up with worthless as others have already pointed out.

-Bri

 

[MoonDragn]

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.

I believe what I see. There was clearly nobody moving that chair, yet it moved by itself. There were also other episodes where something moved in a room where it was clear nobody was near the object. The thing is, I believe what I see. Unless you can prove to me something occured I will keep my own opinions about something. Some of the video footage has convinced me that something is going on there.

Yes you are right, they could have faked the whole thing. Set everything up for ratings etc. But then they lose their credibility. From reading about them on other boards through people that know them, I would say their reputation is pretty good for not falsifying their results. So take it what you will. There was one footage of a "shadow" on tape that could not be reproduced. It moved too fast to be humanly possible and they tried to get a person in a blanket to try to reproduce it and it was nowhere close. Whatever the thing was it was not natural. From the footage it was very hard to create through special effects. My impression about their technical people is that they only have a basic understanding of computers. It would require an expert to do that kind of special effect onto a film. It did not look like the film was edited in anyway so I'm still wondering what it was. It doesn't fit the usual description of "ghost" either.

 

[Darat]

I believe what I see. There was clearly nobody moving that chair, yet it moved by itself. There were also other episodes where something moved in a room where it was clear nobody was near the object. The thing is, I believe what I see. Unless you can prove to me something occured I will keep my own opinions about something. Some of the video footage has convinced me that something is going on there.

...snip...

OK let's assume the chair did move, what is that evidence of?

 

[Joe Random]

This is not meant as a criticism of anyone on this thread, but the thread does remind me quite a bit of the “definition wars” I’d see frequently on the alt.atheism newsgroup. At least once a month an existing thread discussing the merits of an atheistic viewpoint would get dragged to its knees as various participants argued whether ‘atheist’ meant this or that, or ‘agnostic’ meant this or that. The original intent of the thread becomes lost as people play dueling dictionaries, and assert that if someone doesn’t agree with one particular definition of <x> then they can’t call themselves <x>. Or, more ridiculously, that a person claiming to be <x> must therefore believe a certain way in accordance with one particular definition, even after said person has clarified that they in fact do not believe that way.

Words are meant to convey meaning, and meaning is best conveyed clearly when everyone involved holds the same meaning for the words used. So, yes, I do see a critical need to keep definitions clear. However there comes a time when, for various reasons, opposite sides are not going to agree to the same exact meaning of some words, and its at that point that its best (at least in my opinion) to take a step back from the definition war and focus again on the original intent of the discussion.

So with all due respect to those involved, I honestly wonder if it is useful to use a word or a phrase as a label when the definition isn’t agreed upon by all involved, to the point where there’s debate from some if its even a valid term in the first place? In the end, does defining anyone as a “True Skeptic” actually advance a discussion? If the discussion is over the critical thinking or lack there of used by persons who hold a belief in a deity, does it serve to spend more time debating the applicability of a neologism?

When I tell people I’m an atheist, if they reply back “Oh, so how can you be so sure that no gods exist?” I’ll correct them and explain that that isn’t my position, but I won’t spend the whole evening arguing over the meaning of the word. The important part in the discussion is my opinion on the existence of deities. If we can quickly agree on the meaning of a term used as a label for my position, then fantastic – that’s what these types of terms are supposed to be : a quick way to establish a number of qualities belonging to the thing being labeled. However, if the meaning of certain words is contentious enough to take the spotlight and actually hinder the discussion, then I’ll drop those words and simply state my position otherwise.

 

[MoonDragn]

OK let's assume the chair did move, what is that evidence of?

That something moved the chair without human intervention. Since there was no other logical explaination for the chair moving (ie earthquake, continental shift etc) then one can postulate that some unseen force moved the chair. Proving the existence of an unseen force. The next question to be asked then is, what is that unseen force?

 

[Bri]

So with all due respect to those involved, I honestly wonder if it is useful to use a word or a phrase as a label when the definition isn’t agreed upon by all involved, to the point where there’s debate from some if its even a valid term in the first place? In the end, does defining anyone as a “True Skeptic” actually advance a discussion? If the discussion is over the critical thinking or lack there of used by persons who hold a belief in a deity, does it serve to spend more time debating the applicability of a neologism?

Excellent points, and very well-stated. I think these questions were probably part of the impetus for the OP. This topic seems to come up a lot on this forum, so it seems to be important to some people to try to come up with a meaningful definition of "true skeptic" especially if they can exclude a particular subset of people from it (such as theists).

So far I haven't heard a definition that didn't either utilize the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" or else exclude everyone by defining a "true" skeptic to be the same as a "perfect" skeptic (and then admitting that there's no such thing).

So any definition of "true skeptic" is either fallacious or useless.

-Bri

 

[BS Investigator]

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.

Please explain.

 

[prewitt81]

He has already explained - just go back and read it!