'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

[turtle]

Some time ago I came across this suggestion for a new definition of terms in Fortean Times magazine. The recent discussion on the other thread "Challenge to Skeptics" inspired me to post this here. (I thought it better to start a new thread instead of further jumbling up the topics over there.)


"We forteans could be characterised as benign sceptics, taking nothing on trust but tolerating the surreal fringes of explanation until they are supplanted by more convincing evidence. We use 'sceptic' in this sense and distinguish it from the word skeptic (with a 'k') which can usefully be employed to cover the militancy (exemplified by CSICOP) which starts from the premise that most unexplained phenomena area priori impossible. Of course, current dictionaries don't make this distinction; perhaps we need a new word." ~ Fortean Times 1/02

Language changes all the time. I have mixed feelings about that. For example, "funner' is not a word, and I don't care how often it's used and some dictionaries include it. Simply because it's in the dicitonary doesn't mean it's legitimate.

Words have specific meanings, and need to be used correctly. We're all guilty of getting sloppy, or assumng the other person has the same defintion we do when discussing things. Especially the paranormal!

On the other hand, language does change, words take on different meanings over time. (The word "gay" is an example. ) Language is not at all set in stone, never to change.

Whether or not the literalness of new definitions for skeptic etc is the point, I think the intent of FT was to get people to entertain the idea of the various types of skeptics. Just like there are various types of "woos," believers, etc.

So, this should be interesting! I hope.

 

[drkitten]

Some time ago I came across this suggestion for a new definition of terms in Fortean Times magazine. The recent discussion on the other thread "Challenge to Skeptics" inspired me to post this here. (I thought it better to start a new thread instead of further jumbling up the topics over there.)


"We forteans could be characterised as benign sceptics, taking nothing on trust but tolerating the surreal fringes of explanation until they are supplanted by more convincing evidence. We use 'sceptic' in this sense and distinguish it from the word skeptic (with a 'k') which can usefully be employed to cover the militancy (exemplified by CSICOP) which starts from the premise that most unexplained phenomena area priori impossible. Of course, current dictionaries don't make this distinction; perhaps we need a new word." ~ Fortean Times 1/02

Yawn. Yet another tedious little argument by strawman.

You drop a thousand euros in the center of a football pitch.

In one corner is the Easter bunny. In a second corner is Father Christmas. In a third corner is a so-called "skeptic." In the fourth corner is a so-called "sceptic." Which one gets the money?

Answer : The so-called "sceptic." Because the other three don't exist!

 

[Vortex]

So, this should be interesting! I hope.

Nope, it's just stupid.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Please produce one person, out of the available six billion, who says that "most unexplained phenomena are a priori impossible". And please let him be a man of flesh and not of straw.

 

[turtle]

Re: Re: 'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

Yawn. Yet another tedious little argument by strawman.

You drop a thousand euros in the center of a football pitch.

In one corner is the Easter bunny. In a second corner is Father Christmas. In a third corner is a so-called "skeptic." In the fourth corner is a so-called "sceptic." Which one gets the money?

Answer : The so-called "sceptic." Because the other three don't exist!

?? Post makes no sense. I made no mention of Easter Bunnies, etc. Are you denying, then, that there are no degrees of skepticism?

 

[turtle]

Re: Re: 'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

Nope, it's just stupid.

Well, that's an enlightening comment. Care to say why you think "it's stupid?" I'll ask you the same question: you deny then that there are types of skeptics, from mild mannered, lol, to the more "militant?" All skeptics are the same, eh? that's about the only group in the world that is, then, I guess.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: 'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

?? Post makes no sense. I made no mention of East Bunnies, etc. Are you denying, then, that there are no degrees of skepticism?

Yes. I specifically deny that you can produce a meaningful one-dimensional distribution of "skepticism." I also specifically deny that the "skeptic"/"sceptic" distinction you try to draw exists. I also specifically deny that any such person exists who would claim that "most unexplained phenomena area priori impossible."

And I also agree, with Vortex, that the whole idea is stupid.

 

[Open Mind]

Please produce one person, out of the available six billion, who says that "most unexplained phenomena are a priori impossible". And please let him be a man of flesh and not of straw.

No problem

How about this description of a Prometheus Book called 'A Physicist's Guide to Skepticism' (Prometheus Books and CSICOP have the same founder Paul Kurtz)

The laws of physics provide clear-cut principles defining what is possible - and not possible - in the physical world. This book examines and critiques many widely held pseudoscientific beliefs in light of these laws. Rather than treating supernatural claims on a case-by-case basis, Milton Rothman uses the general principles supplied by physics to show why they are, in fact, impossible.

Rothman divides the laws of physics into two classes: laws of permission and laws of denial. Laws of permission, such as Newton's laws of motion, generally do not allow precise predictions except in the simplest cases. Laws of denial, such as conservation of energy, permit very accurate conclusions about what cannot possibly occur.

He uses these concepts to examine and critique the possible existence of various paranormal phenomena, such as UFOs, telepathy, perpetual motion machines, poltergeists, etc. He also discusses a number of concepts traditional to science fiction: anti-gravity, faster-than-light travel, time travel, etc., which are shown to be impossible when subject to rigorous examination.
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_652.html

Yes closed minded sKepticism is alive and well .....

 

[Garrette]

It seems to me, turtle, that you and the quoted article are mixing personality types and belief systems.

To paraphrase: This sceptic is too harsh for my liking, therefore he is a sKeptic and closed-minded.

Of course there are widely differing personality types among skeptics just as there are among believers, but unless you can address the arguments of a skeptic or believer you are guilty yourself of closed-mindedness. (Assuming, of course, that there is an argument to address; there often is not, and we are left trying to refute simple assertion).

 

[turtle]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

Yes. I specifically deny that you can produce a meaningful one-dimensional distribution of "skepticism." I also specifically deny that the "skeptic"/"sceptic" distinction you try to draw exists. I also specifically deny that any such person exists who would claim that "most unexplained phenomena area priori impossible."

And I also agree, with Vortex, that the whole idea is stupid.

First of all, I am not trying to draw any kind of line. I am quoting from an editorial comment from a magazine that I find very interesting.

Secondly, what is "stupid" about the idea that within any group there are degrees? If you truly deny that, that is simply ignorant. Or naive.

 

[Garrette]

Open Mind,

I think you are mistaken. I think the definition of a priori we are discussing, and which we agree is misplaced, is this (from Merriam Webster):

being without examination or analysis

The quoted book seems to be the opposite in that the author has examined and analyzed general (purported) phenomena and found them in violation of well known tenets.

As an example, am I dismissing a priori an idea if I say that "If I hold a ball in my hand and let go it will rise instead of fall. This happens only in my own backyard?"

I don't think so.

 

[drkitten]

How about this description of a Prometheus Book called 'A Physicist's Guide to Skepticism' (Prometheus Books and CSICOP have the same founder Paul Kurtz)

You've shown someone who has been described as holding this position. The author of the book review claims that the author of the book (Rothman) holds this position. Not at all the same thing.

Furthermore, he is is only described as showing things to be impossible "when subject to rigorous examination." Not exactly a priori according to the conventional meaning.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

First of all, I am not trying to draw any kind of line. I am quoting from an editorial comment from a magazine that I find very interesting.

And I claim that the the editorial comment itself is stupid, ignorant, and an argument by straw man.

Secondly, what is "stupid" about the idea that within any group there are degrees? If you truly deny that, that is simply ignorant. Or naive.

Degrees in the abstract may or may not be problematic. But degrees along this particular contiuum do not meaningfully exist. One might as well speculate about the "degree" to which any given skeptic is a carbon-based lifeform. Until we actually have evidence of variation along that axis.... it remains stupid.

 

[Open Mind]

The quoted book seems to be the opposite in that the author has examined and analyzed general (purported) phenomena and found them in violation of well known tenets.

The book description says 'Rather than treating supernatural claims on a case-by-case basis, Milton Rothman uses the general principles supplied by physics to show why they are, in fact, impossible.
If he not treating it on a case by case basis, in my opinion this is still a 'priori'.

As an example, am I dismissing a priori an idea if I say that "If I hold a ball in my hand and let go it will rise instead of fall. This happens only in my own backyard?"

In my opinion even this should still be investigated, if the claim is sincerely made.

You've shown someone who has been described as holding this position. The author of the book review claims that the author of the book (Rothman) holds this position. Not at all the same thing.

Furthermore, he is is only described as showing things to be impossible "when subject to rigorous examination." Not exactly a priori according to the conventional meaning.

You are correct and I've not read the book. But whoever wrote that description seems ever so keen to say it's 'impossible' .. so I think I've still found a close minded skeptic at Prometheus Books

 

[hgc]

skeptic = American
sceptic = British

Same word, either side of the ocean.

If it's so important to you, turtle (or to the magazine writer you fondly quote), to redefine a word that currently means the exact opposite of what you want it to mean, namely credulity, then go ahead, and good luck to you. After the word sk/ceptic has been dashed upon the rocks of magical desires, those who think that physical evidence counts for something in determining reality will still not believe in every silly notion that pops up (by the way, none of them new or original). They'll have a another word to call themselves, and you will still be jealous of their achievements in human thought and want to appropriate that word too.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Open Mind:

In my opinion even this should still be investigated, if the claim is sincerely made

Ah, yes. Sincerity. That reliable arbiter.

You'll find scads of sincerity at the psychiatric hospitals in which I worked, and numerous fantastic claims.

You'll find truckloads of sincerity in every John Edward audience.

You'll find an impregnable wall of sincerity in a very close friend of mine who still thinks Uri Geller to be genuine.

Ah, Sincerity. How sorely we abuse ye.

 

[RamblingOnwards]

At least now I know where II gets this particular abuse of the english language from.

To quote my reply to II on this matter:

You are aware that sceptic and skeptic are in fact the same word, right? You don't think that color and colour mean two different things because they happen to be spelt differently? If you are irritated by the drift in the language but still want to use the word 'scepticism', you may want to consider these (well-accepted) refinements:

Philosophical skepticism: the belief that absolute truth or falsehood can not be determined through logic.

Scientific skepticism: the belief that truth or falsehood can only be verified by the scientific method

 

[jj]

Ah, yes. Sincerity. That reliable arbiter.

You'll find scads of sincerity at the psychiatric hospitals in which I worked, and numerous fantastic claims.

You'll find truckloads of sincerity in every John Edward audience.

You'll find an impregnable wall of sincerity in a very close friend of mine who still thinks Uri Geller to be genuine.

Ah, Sincerity. How sorely we abuse ye.

Agreed.

I may use my estimate of sincerity when I consider how to take a given person's statements, indeed, however, the fact that somebody sincerely thinks the moon is made of green cheese does not inspire me to build a new moon rocket and send it flying up there on behalf of the Planet X cheesemaker's guild.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I may use my estimate of sincerity when I consider how to take a given person's statements, indeed, however, the fact that somebody sincerely thinks the moon is made of green cheese does not inspire me to build
(snip)

On the other hand, it is somehow sincere to put forth that comparison even when no one ever in the history of the universe has seriously put forth the notion of the moon being made from green cheese.

 

[Open Mind]

A good article touching nearly all the issues raised in this topic, is one by Marcello Truzzi.

http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/truzzi.html