"Myths of Skepticism"

plindboe

Graduate Poster
Joined
Apr 4, 2003
Messages
1,246
I got this link from a believer forum:

http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/talk/talk.html

It's not the usual anti-skeptic rant, but is actually relatively fair, well written and interesting, imo. I agree with much of what he says, but disagree with much as well.

Opinions on the article are most welcome.

Enjoy!
 
Myth #15: Being a good skeptic means being a debunker.

Some people are really gun-ho to debunk. Why? I can understand a desire to ``protect'' people from charlatans, but that characterization of believers, and promoters of the paranormal is, to me suspect. It is also a very aggressive approach to skepticism, very confrontational, and makes many people uncomfortable. (And is, perhaps one of the reason there are so few women in skeptics organizations.)

If there is good evidence of fraud, there are law enforcement and regulatory agencies to handle this. If they are not doing their job to your satisfaction, there is a government open to lobbying (perhaps too open, according to some, but that's a topic for a different talk.)

Well put.

Too often vocal skeptics not only want to play pretend scientist, but also play pretend law enforcement.
 
jzs said:
Too often vocal skeptics not only want to play pretend scientist, but also play pretend law enforcement.
Such nonsense. I have never heard of skeptics pretending to be law enforcement, and as to pretending to be scientists, they do a better job than the woo-woos!

Why has the word "debunk" such a negative sound to some people? If there was substance in the woo stuff, then debunking would be impossible anyway, and debunking is the only way to rattle people's mind sufficiently to start thinking themselves. If nobody had tested dowsers and shown their poor record, many more people would have believed in that stuff today. At school we compared astrology charts and saw how every chart matched every pupil in the class, irrespective of their birth date. If these things were not done, how should we ever adopt a critical thinking ... hey, that is what they want: we should never adopt critical thinking!
 
I think it's a little more complex than that, steenkh.

Think of all the people who hang on Sylvia Brown's every word. The people that John Edward has "comforted in their time of loss". These people don't want their long-cherished beliefs torn away from them by some curmudgeonly debunker. They have a lot of emotion invested in these beliefs. So anyone who comes along and tries to convince them that they are not true are going to be put in the same position as the dooor-knocking Christian evangelists at an atheist's house.

These folks are quite happy with the wool firmly over their eyes, and they will get upset and angry when you try to remove it, for exactly the same reason that I get annoyed when evangelists try to convert me. I don't want your belief system shoved in my face, I'm quite intelligent enough to make up my own mind, and spend my money where I choose.

That's why debunkers are often seen negatively.
 
In my view, there is a lot of difference between a 'sceptic' and a 'debunker.' Sceptics are people who begin with a rational ideology but are prepared to consider other principles if persuaded by evidence (by having his/her own psychic encounter, for example.) Debunkers are those who begin with an ideology and will never accept any other point of view even if the evidence presented itself.

One can also find sceptical mediums and debunking psychics as well. I consider myself to be a 'sceptical medium.' Such ideologies are not confined to rational thinkers.

To have a balance, one must be prepared to consider all angles with the view to perhaps having one's outlook in life changed.

Patsy.
 
arthwollipot said:
That's why debunkers are often seen negatively.
But that is exactly why I look on debunking in a positive light!

I think it is a fact that if you debunk, there is a difference as to which audience you address. If you go to a psychic fair and overturns their tables and hold sermons, you are a pain in the ass. If you address undecided people, or people who are not fully into the woo stuff, debunking can be very beneficial.
 
songstress said:
In my view, there is a lot of difference between a 'sceptic' and a 'debunker.' Sceptics are people who begin with a rational ideology but are prepared to consider other principles if persuaded by evidence (by having his/her own psychic encounter, for example.) Debunkers are those who begin with an ideology and will never accept any other point of view even if the evidence presented itself.
Although it is nice to have a word for irritating skeptics, it has nothing to do with debunking. Or what would you call a person who exposes a fraud or superstition without having started with an ideology?

As for whether such ideologists exist at all, I cannot say. I have never met somebody who would not be persuaded by valid arguments, but there is a lot of difference in what skeptics and woos call valid arguments.
 
Steenkh,

What is a 'woo' exactly?

No, a sceptic is not a 'debunker.' There is a difference.

Patsy.
 
songstress said:
Steenkh,

What is a 'woo' exactly?

No, a sceptic is not a 'debunker.' There is a difference.

Patsy.
I know that the word 'woo' is also loaded, but I use it to encompass all the different types of believers in magical thinking, paranormality, and so on. I do not know any other word that covers all (and is only three letters long).

I am not a native English speaker so I can of course be comletely wrong in the usage of these words, and I should not trust my feelings too much.

My thoughts about 'debunking' is that it describes an action and not a mindset. I am supported in this by the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary that defines 'debunk' as:
to show that something is less important, less good or less true than it has been made to appear
I suppose a 'debunker' is a person who performs 'debunking'.

To me this definition sounds very positive, and I would like to see more debunking done. But that does not mean that I think that skeptics should debunk all the time under all circumstances.
 
From the link:
With Newtonian mechanics, and the appropriate mapping assumptions (how ellipses, foci, and differential equations relate to planets and stars) you can derive predictions about the orbits of the planets. The problem was, it didn't quite work. Newtonian physics failed to account for the orbit of first Saturn, and later Uranus. Astronomers at first assumed their orbital measurements were inaccurate (bad mapping assumption). Later, as orbital measurements improved an auxiliary hypothesis in the form of a conjectured new planet was introduced. This auxiliary hypothesis was tested, and found to be correct in what stands as one of the most spectacular predictions ever made by a scientific theory.

Simply put, Newtonian mechanics it failed in an early prediction. It had clear unambiguous observational consequences, and they were not observed. By naïve falsification it should have been abandoned. Obviously, it wasn't, but not because passed all tests or solved all outstanding problems. In fact, as Kuhn and others have pointed out, when it came to the formation of the solar system, Newton initially predicted less than competing theories. Newtonian mechanics succeeded, however, because it was very good at solving many problems, and it proposed a uniform way in which many more problems could be solved. In short, it was a good, general theory with wide potential application.

Could someone explain to me why this is an "auxiliary hypothesis", and not a "bad mapping assumption" as well? In this case the measurements were not faulty, but an additional variable was left out. This additional variable was well accounted for under Newtonian mechanics, and no "auxiliary hypothesis" was needed to account for it.

Or am I just being dense?
 
juryjone said:
From the link:


Could someone explain to me why this is an "auxiliary hypothesis", and not a "bad mapping assumption" as well? In this case the measurements were not faulty, but an additional variable was left out. This additional variable was well accounted for under Newtonian mechanics, and no "auxiliary hypothesis" was needed to account for it.

Or am I just being dense?

The orbits of Saturn and Uranus were inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics. But it would be ridiculous to thereby conclude that Newtonian mechanics had been falsified. In order to save Newtonian mechanics one could introduce an additional hypothesis in this context -- namely the existence of yet to be discovered planets which would square observations with Newtonian mechanics (or the mapping assumptions engendered by Newtonian Mechanics).
 
I think "auxiliary " is fair, in the sense of "supporting", which is what auxiliary means.

Newtonian mechanics may be a bad example though. The problem with NM is that it was so obviously correct. A model as powerful, as sweet and as elegant just screamed "CORRECT" at everyone who saw it.
So when it failed a prediction, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, anyone with a grain of sense knew that there was something else he had not considered.

For Herschel and later Lowell and Tombaugh, that had to be one, or more unknown gravitating bodies. That was a testable hypothesis and the tests came up positive.

In the case of Mercury, there visibly was no other body. Either there was something wrong with the sun , or the theory was, actually incomplete. Which it was. Relativity supplied the correction.
 
Interesting Ian said:
The orbits of Saturn and Uranus were inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics.

As opposed to the orbits of the inner planets?
 
Soapy Sam said:
In the case of Mercury, there visibly was no other body. Either there was something wrong with the sun , or the theory was, actually incomplete. Which it was. Relativity supplied the correction. [/B]

You can't dispense with Newtonian Mechanics simply because of the anomalous motion of Mercury!

Falsificationism is simply a far too naive interpretation of how science progresses. Popper himself recognised that science doesn't progress in such a manner -- he merely thought it ought to.

But in reality we can either:

a) We can call into question the observations. Perhaps those doing the observing are lying, or incompetent, or there are unrecognised factors confounding the accuracy of the observations.

b) The observations seem to be absolutely fine, so perhaps there are factors skewing what we would expect to see (auxiliary hypotheses are called for here).

c) We can just give up on it and ignore the anomaly. We can't work out why our observations do not square with theory, but if the theory concerned has been universally successful in all other aspects, then it would be foolish to abandon it because of one single anomaly!

In reality a successful theory does not get falsified because of one or two isolated apparent phenomena. We need first of all a better theory to take its place which explains all the former theory explained, in addition to being able to explain the phenomena that it couldn't explain.
 
Ok, I guess it's just a matter of terminology as to what is an auxiliary hypothesis, and what is mismeasuring the variables involved.

I've finished reading the entire document, and it seems to me to set up quite a few strawmen to knock down. So sometimes science isn't perfect? Really? *Yawn*

But that doesn't bother me. It's awfully easy to set up strawmen, and I've done it myself sometimes.

What really bothers me is the writer's stance that some topics should not be looked at sceptically. He states: "Besides, issues of gods and dæmons are none of the business of a skeptics group for good, practical reasons." While I agree that a god which is uninvolved in everyday life is going to be impossible to disprove, the fact remains that most religious people believe in an involved god, one which acts on a physical plane to answer prayers. This is a claim which can be tested, and so is definitely a topic for sceptical discussion. Religion is just as valid a topic for discussion as UFOs or leprechauns.
 
Wow.

That's one of the best posts I've read, Ian.

As I'm not a philosopher of science, I suppose I could be missing some nuances (either correct or incorrect), but it is, I think, both accurate and concise.

Edited to add: I think I'm nominating it for the language award.
 
I seem to remember seeing that Sylvia Browne on the Montel WIlliams show. I remember her wanting to talk about different subjects about psychic intuition, spirituality etc. But everyone in the audience just wanted to know, "is my dead grandma okay now?", and other than that weren't interested in what SYlvia Browne had to say beyond what they want to hear. Well, that was my impression
 
According to Dictionary.com, "bunk" is (apart from the obvious bed-related definitions) defined as "empty talk or nonsense".

Who could possibly argue that removing "bunk" is a bad thing?

And, just in case "debunking" has acquired a different meaning than its root, it defines it as: "expose while ridiculing; especially of pretentious or false claims and ideas"

While you might think that ridicule is unnecessary, exposure of the truth should be something for which we should all strive, no?
 
I was following him until he started talking about "the stillness in the center of quiet" or whatever, which fails on a number of counts, none of which is what he was implying. Primarily, it fails because it's vague, it's mostly just an empty statement. I might as well be argueing that all zormuffs are ferwopot. Second, yes, all theories have to fit in with previous theory, but current theory is supported by tens of thousands of experiments, that is not comparible to just declaring something as true and trying to fit your data into that "theory". Third, if you want to define "quiet is the center of stillness" as "bees polinating" then yeah, okay, your hypothisis is "correct" but this reveals a suprising lack of understanding of how a hypothisis is constructed; if you wanted to use this hypothisis to conclude anything other than "bees polinate" then you would have to expand your theory. You can't, for example, say that your quiet in the center of stillness theory successfully predicted bees polinating, therefore chakra exists, anymore then you could say that it implies the moonlanding was faked, or any other random thing you can come up with.

His statements about newton's laws also have the same failing. We don't imediately discount newton's laws after one failed experiment because we have thousands of experiments to support it. If the data doesn't match the hypothisis, it would be best not to assume the hypothisis is true. However, if 99.9% of the data matches, we'd be prudent in considering that .1% might be some kind of irregularity. This does not apply to some guy in his basement claiming that ghosts exist "just because the data doesn't match doesn't mean you can throw away my theory." Sure we can.

His talk about cognitive relativism was....interesting. I had a long rant typed up, but looking over it again, he doesn't seem to be supporting cognitive relativism, I have a hard time understanding why he brought it up. It seems to be the only point he's making is that scientists can be biased. Well, no kidding. The two examples he gives are retarded to boot. IQ tests have never been taken seriously by anyone other then Mensa as a reliable guide to intelligence, and we can't ethically construct a strong experiment to show differences between the sexes.
 

Back
Top Bottom