Is "True Skeptic" a fallacy?

[BS Investigator]

Sceptic vs Skeptic.... "teach the controversy"...

 

[El_Spectre]

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.

Must... resist... being... snarky...

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.

Remember kids: Dictionaries don't define words, Ian does

 

[El_Spectre]

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

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.

Doesn't this just devalue the term "evidence" to the level of "opinion" or 'subjective experience' then?

We have people who have experienced voices in their head. And when we give them medicine the voices (sometimes) go away. Did the 'other' ever exist? Nope.

 

[m0nngis]

Welcome!

Thank you!

What is it with these people?

I have no idea. I can picture Ian at a party, though, engaged in conversation with a girl who reveals herself as a believer.

Believer: ...so that's why I feel that quantum mechanics proves that life after death and PSI exists!
Ian: So you're a sceptic!
Believer: *confused* Well, no, those close-minded materialists don't believe in anything!
Ian: No, no, you're talking about skeptics, I mean you're a sceptic.
Believer: Huh?
Ian: Oh, yeah, uh, forgot this isn't the Internet... You're talking about skeptics with a K, and I'm talking about sceptics with a C, see?
Believer: Erh, no, that's the same word. The only difference is that one is the American way to spell it, while the other is British. You know, like color with or without a U...
Ian: No! You see, me and my sockpu... er, I mean friend, Open Mind, over at the JREF Forums have changed the definition!
Believer: You're stupid.
Ian: No, I'm not! I'm interesting!!!11oneone


Anywho, here's something on-topic:

BSI: There's no such thing as a "true skeptic".

I would define a skeptic as someone who applies skepticism to most parts of ones life.

Why you would want to be so elitist and divise is pretty weird. I don't know if you've noticed, but critical thinking and skepticism isn't exactly what most people go for. If someone is a valuable source to the skeptical movement, why would you want to exclude them? If you want to do that you can make your own word, "BSInvestigationism" or something, where one would have to be just like you to fit the definition.

 

[El_Spectre]

Why you would want to be so elitist and divise is pretty weird. I don't know if you've noticed, but critical thinking and skepticism isn't exactly what most people go for. If someone is a valuable source to the skeptical movement, why would you want to exclude them? If you want to do that you can make your own word, "BSInvestigationism" or something, where one would have to be just like you to fit the definition.

Hey, I think we all have that epiphany "Hey, this is all BS !" moment, and some of us are more outspoken than others. BSI is just being a tad militant It's cool.

Edited to bowlderize "BS", which the auto-censor caught

 

[Darat]

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

Doesn't this just devalue the term "evidence" to the level of "opinion" or 'subjective experience' then?

It's not a matter (in my opinion) of devaluing the term evidence just about using it accurately and understanding what it means.

We have people who have experienced voices in their head. And when we give them medicine the voices (sometimes) go away. Did the 'other' ever exist? Nope.

If the voices aren't evidence why did we give them medicine?

We do take what the person says (e.g. the claim that they can hear voices in their head, other then their own) as evidence of something however in your example the same evidence leads to two different conclusion. (Actually it would be more accurate to say that the evidence of the claim of voices in their head along with other evidence leads to a different conclusion.)

One of the criticism that is made here is that some people dismiss the evidence because it does not support a certain conclusion. Although that does occasionally happen what I think happens more often is that the same evidence leads different people to different conclusions, so it is the conclusion that is being dismissed not the evidence.(Or it’s the reasoning from the evidence to the conclusion that is dismissed.)

On the whole, we dismiss eyewitness evidence (anecdotal), because other evidence has shown that it is very unreliable and therefore to use it as the sole evidence for a conclusion is very risky. (For instance I always state that I believe in ghosts, to say otherwise would (in my opinion) be to deny plenty of evidence however what I would dismiss is that the evidence of ghosts supports the conclusion that ghosts are a supernatural phenomena.)

Anecdotal evidence should not be simply dismissed; however it has to be used carefully with an understanding of its inherent unreliability, which unsurprisingly brings us back to the statement “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. In other words if you want to overturn an already established conclusion (i.e. a conclusion formed by sound reasoning from multiple sources and types of strong evidence) then you are going to have to produce as evidence something much stronger then a type of evidence that is known to be inherently unreliable.

 

[El_Spectre]

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

If the voices aren't evidence why did we give them medicine?

I should have been clearer, in that they are not evidence for an 'other' (or 'otter', as I almost typo'd that)

Anecdotal evidence should not be simply dismissed; however it has to be used carefully with an understanding of its inherent unreliability, which unsurprisingly brings us back to the statement “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. In other words if you want to overturn an already established conclusion (i.e. a conclusion formed by sound reasoning from multiple sources and types of strong evidence) then you are going to have to produce as evidence something much stronger then a type of evidence that is known to be inherently unreliable.

I guess I can hang with that. The difference is I wouldn't use 'evidence' for these subjective experiences... but I understand. I just wonder if 'evidence' so weak and unreliable should have that name at all.

BTW, good response.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

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

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.

Ooh! Ohh! Could you get them to look at s

eptic?

Um.. they might have to alter their type-setting a little.


On topic: I think that the attempt to create a True Skeptic is only as a reaction to the use of True Believer, which I always thought was just a Marvel comics reference anyway.

 

[BS Investigator]

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

... (For instance I always state that I believe in ghosts, to say otherwise would (in my opinion) be to deny plenty of evidence however what I would dismiss is that the evidence of ghosts supports the conclusion that ghosts are a supernatural phenomena.)

Why would you state that you "believe in ghosts"? There is no valid scientific evidence, no extraordinary evidence, as you pointed out. Would you also state that you "believe in unicorns"? Seems to me the better answer would be: "I cannot rule out unicorns or ghosts." Aren't you giving too much credence to things that go "bump" inside our heads?

Anecdotal evidence should not be simply dismissed; however it has to be used carefully with an understanding of its inherent unreliability, which unsurprisingly brings us back to the statement “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. In other words if you want to overturn an already established conclusion (i.e. a conclusion formed by sound reasoning from multiple sources and types of strong evidence) then you are going to have to produce as evidence something much stronger then a type of evidence that is known to be inherently unreliable.

Agreed. It seems that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is a powerful and very useful precept for skepticism, indeed.

 

[Beady]

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

If the voices aren't evidence why did we give them medicine?

We do take what the person says (e.g. the claim that they can hear voices in their head, other then their own) as evidence of something...

Actually, the field of medicine is a good arena to illustrate the fallacy that anecdotal evidence has no value. If someone has a flushed complexion and the skin feels abnormally warm to the touch, should the doctor discount the patient's anecdotal evidence that they feel fine? If the doctor can see nothing visibly wrong, and if clinical tests show nothing wrong, should the doctor discount the anecdotal evidence that the patient suffers constant heartburn?

That last, btw, happened to me. Took me a year to convince them I was having severe acid reflux. Finally wound up having abdominal surgery that kept me in the hospital for a week and home in bed for a month. It was all anecdotal evidence, until one of the doctors decided to do just one more test (and I think he only did it to stop me from begging).

And then there's the legal arena. I've been on two juries, one civil and one criminal, and both cases were decided on anecdotal evidence (otherwise known as "testimony"). Watch any of the "real-life" small-claims court shows (Judge Judy, etc), that''s almost all anecdotal evidence. Mind you, numbers will generally trump words, but often the numbers are only used for settling an amount, not deciding the right or wrong of an issue.

 

[drkitten]

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

I guess I can hang with that. The difference is I wouldn't use 'evidence' for these subjective experiences... but I understand. I just wonder if 'evidence' so weak and unreliable should have that name at all.

Weak and unreliable for what? A self-report that "I hear voices in my head" strikes me as the strongest possible evidence that the speaker does, in fact, hear voices in his head.

Many of the doctors (GPs) that I know would immediately refer our hypothetical patient for a full psych evaluation on the strength of this single self-reportage of a subjective experience.

Ditto for a self-reportage that "I feel like killiing myself. Please talk me out of it." I had the unpleasant experience once of having a friend tell me that over the telephone, long-distance. After we finished talking, I reported that conversation, as close to verbatim as I could, to the relevant medical authorities at her college, and they (the medical authorities) were willing to intervene on the basis of my second-hand account. In other words, they were willing to act on the basis of "mere" hearsay, in this instance. And I (and she) are extremely glad, some years later, that they did.


What do you think a doctor should do when a patient self-reports such a subjective "experience"?

 

[drkitten]

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

Ooh! Ohh! Could you get them to look at s

eptic?

Well, I suppose I could, if you make it worth my while. As I said on another thread, I'm looking for a tenured position at Cambridge, a private Greek island where I can go when the pressures of work get too great, a mint-condition 1960 Jaguar XK 150 DHC convertible in British racing green, a Guarnerius violin, and to be much closer to my ideal weight.. Line them up and we'll talk.

 

[Darat]

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

Why would you state that you "believe in ghosts"? There is no valid scientific evidence, no extraordinary evidence, as you pointed out. Would you also state that you "believe in unicorns"? Seems to me the better answer would be: "I cannot rule out unicorns or ghosts." Aren't you giving too much credence to things that go "bump" inside our heads?

Because I believe the evidence for the phenomena of ghosts is overwhelming e.g. lots and lots of people report the evidence for them. Unless I can discount them all as lying (and to do so I would need additional evidence) then I accept that evidence.

I am also happy using a catch-all description “ghost” to describe the various reported phenomena.

I really don’t see how you can discount the evidence and what the problem is using the term "ghost" to describe it; it's a bit like someone saying they don’t believe in UFOs!


(Although I mean it the above is a bit of fun as I think I know what you meant – you seemed to have missed the part where I said – however what I would dismiss is that the evidence of ghosts supports the conclusion that ghosts are a supernatural phenomena.)

 

[Francois Tremblay]

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.

How can you be a moderator and not know what skepticism is ?

 

[prewitt81]

So not agreeing with your definition = not knowing what skepticism is?

Darat actually did a good job summarizing Philosophical Skepticism.

Click the link and learn something.

 

[Darat]

How can you be a moderator and not know what skepticism is ?

I do know what it is, I gave a succinct definition that you quoted.

 

[Pyrrho]

Yes, the term "true skeptic" or "real skeptic" or "skeptic vs sceptic" is a fallacy, especially when used as a standard of measure of one's skepticism. If we were to lump people into groups based on their skepticism relative to "true skepticism", we'd find that the people in each group had a generally similar "level" of skepticism...and they'd still all qualify as "skeptics"...and we still wouldn't know what "true skeptic" really was.

The term "skeptic" has been appropriated by groups so varied in outlook that the term has become virtually meaningless as a label for one's own skepticism.

What it boils down to is a fundamental difference: people who are willing to accept claims at face value, and who do not ask for further evidence, versus people who are not willing to accept claims at face value, and who ask for convincing evidence.

For me, skepticism boils down to this:

"I am skeptical of that. Please show me the evidence."

A person could be almost totally credulous and still be a skeptic of something. That's why using the term "skeptic" to identify a movement, cause, philosophy, outlook, etc. doesn't serve so well these days. Throwing in a term such as "I am a true skeptic," or "I am a real skeptic," only serves to make one look quite dogmatic.

Set aside the convenient labels and ask the tough questions. Labels are irrelevant to the important questions. Trying to pin labels on ourselves while trying to take the same label away from other people is fallacious and futile.

Here, when people make claims, we demand evidence to support those claims. Call it what you will.

By the way, I am a Skeptic God. The rest of you, compared to me, are as but superstitious monkeys.

(That's an ironic statement, in case anybody took it seriously.)

 

[CFLarsen]

A person could be almost totally credulous and still be a skeptic of something.

Uri Geller is a skeptic?

Sylvia Browne is a skeptic?

 

[Pyrrho]

Uri Geller is a skeptic?

Sylvia Browne is a skeptic?

If they are skeptical of something, then, yes, they can apply the term skeptic to themselves. Certainly not in the sense that you and I are "skeptics". This specific use of the dictionary term "skeptic" has been taken advantage of to good effect by many whom we would not consider to be "skeptics". There are many qualifications of the term being thrown about these days: "honest skeptics", "dishonest skeptics", "genuine skeptics", "armchair skeptics", "cynical skeptics," "open-minded skeptics", "closed-minded skeptics", and so on. Such terms are frequently used in ad hominem arguments and as excuses to avoid the issues, as in "I won't consider criticism from armchair skeptics."

If we spend time and energy trying to identify misuse of the term "skeptic", we do so at the risk of failing to address the incredible claims that need to be addressed. Who is or is not a "true skeptic" is a red herring. Which is more important: to dispute the use of the label "skeptic" with Sylvia Browne, or to dispute her claims of special supernatural powers?

The watering-down of the term "skeptic" is similar to the watering-down of the terms "supernatural", "paranormal", and so on.

The bottom line remains the same: in the face of an incredible claim, the issue is not "who is or is not a skeptic", but "Where's the evidence?"

"I can talk to dead people."

"I am skeptical of that. Where's the evidence?"

"You're not a real skeptic. Real skeptics are open-minded."

"Okay, I'm not a real skeptic. Where's the evidence that you can talk to dead people?"

"True skeptics want to learn the truth. You're just being destructive."

"Okay, I'm not a true skeptic. Where's the evidence that you can talk to dead people?"

We need to keep the focus on the fundamental questions, without allowing ourselves to be dragged off on arguments over labels.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's not a case of either-or. We should be pointing out that there is no evidence of Sylvia's claims, but also that her (mis)use of the term is false.

Without this explanation, the general public isn't going to see through her bull. They will see two parties - Sylvia and the skeptics - and see that both claim to be skeptics.

Who will they believe, if they don't understand that Sylvia isn't a skeptic? That her evidence is manure? They will believe Sylvia, of course: She will tell them that there is, in fact, evidence of their own beliefs in the afterlife (because she's the expert, right?). She will be believed, partly because she is the one with the great news. But mainly because she is the one with the experience.

We are so used to listen to and trust experts, that without the explanation, people have no chance of seeing through the crap. Forget about your experience as a skeptic: Sylvia has decades worth of experience of talking to the dead. Randi has decades worth of experience of not talking to the dead. He has a wide experience of a lot of things, but Sylvia has more in her own field. Who would you believe, right off the bat?

Sylvia, of course.

It's the same way with e.g. astrologers: Hey, astrology has been around for thousands of years, right? Astrologers have been doing this for many, many years, right?

Who the hell am I to say that they are wrong?