'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

[Dr Adequate]

Dr's, it seems that 'closed minded skeptics' really means what Truzzi calls pseudo skeptics.

Unfortunately, you don't say how to tell the difference between real skeptics and pseudoskeptics.

So I looked it up.

And it appears that "pseudoskeptic" is the word that a believer applies to anyone who doesn't believe what he believes --- not because this refutes the arguments of the skeptic, nor because it substantiates the arguments of the believer, but frankly because some people --- we've seen a few lately --- really do believe that this sort of whiny psychobabble is a substitute for argument.

Instead of answering honest doubters requesting evidence, the believer merely has to proclaim that their doubt is not honest and to refuse to supply them with the evidence they ask for on the grounds that they would "refuse to accept it", which, if you have a belief entirely unsubstatiated by real evidence, is a great way to get off the hook when you're asked for it. He can then brag about how "open minded " he is.

By this process of lunatic fantasy, the believer can substitute a theory showing that everyone who disagrees with him is stupid, dogmatic, etc for the production of evidence which most people would find convincing --- which must be a great relief to him; and it is also a fantasy of personal superiority --- which must also be pleasant for him.

The downside of substituting this fantasy for real debate is that to call a skeptic a "pseudoskeptic" doesn't answer a single one of his arguments --- it's an empty, worthless ad hominem. But it pleases little minds.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Or do you consider that, based on what you believe, the world appears to be 'round'?

I think that based on what we know the world is round.

There is sufficient evidence for this that the only alternative would be a metaphysical "Am I really living on a spherical world, or am I living on a tetrahedral world but dreaming that I'm living on a spherical world... for the last thirty years?" kind of thing. But even then, you and I would agree to call "the world" (as we define it between ourselves, ostensively) spherical.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

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

quote:Originally posted by The Odd Emperor

I take your point however, most people who understand rules and evidence or comprehend scientific philosophy tend not to be closed minded.

Is this a joke? You either jest or are naive.

Hopefully I have more choices than those two?

No; in my experience, people who are acquainted with rules of evidence and/or the scientific process *tend* to be more open minded. More open minded than those who simply believe in this or that and do not require (or desire in many cases) evidence that may or may not alter their beliefs.

This is simply an opinion based on many years of working around people in various science and engineering capacities. I mean; I might have fallen off the turnip truck yesterday but, I never liked turnips in the first place.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

I think that based on what we know the world is round.

There is sufficient evidence for this that the only alternative would be a metaphysical "Am I really living on a spherical world, or am I living on a tetrahedral world but dreaming that I'm living on a spherical world... for the last thirty years?" kind of thing. But even then, you and I would agree to call "the world" (as we define it between ourselves, ostensively) spherical.

If I were a complete wag I would say the world is something of an oblate spheroid.

 

[Pragmatist]

If I were a complete wag I would say the world is something of an oblate spheroid.

Ah, but that rather depends on one's frame of reference. For someone moving fast enough it may appear to be distinctly like a pancake.

Thus we have to make allowances for the good doctor. His mind races at such a prodigious rate that he is in a frame of reference of his own...!

 

[DrWoo]

I think that based on what we know the world is round.

There is sufficient evidence for this that the only alternative would be a metaphysical "Am I really living on a spherical world, or am I living on a tetrahedral world but dreaming that I'm living on a spherical world... for the last thirty years?" kind of thing. But even then, you and I would agree to call "the world" (as we define it between ourselves, ostensively) spherical.

I do not know for sure, being a sceptic.

It does appear to be the case that gravity/matter curves space, and the case for a theoretical 'flat earth' growing stronger the more we learn about the effect of matter/gravity on space and time.

 

[Interesting Ian]

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

Hopefully I have more choices than those two?

No; in my experience, people who are acquainted with rules of evidence and/or the scientific process *tend* to be more open minded. More open minded than those who simply believe in this or that and do not require (or desire in many cases) evidence that may or may not alter their beliefs.

Read some Kuhn.

 

[TLN]

Read some Kuhn.

How about you just learn to read, period, before making book recommendations?

 

[DrWoo]

Unfortunately, you don't say how to tell the difference between real skeptics and pseudoskeptics.

So I looked it up.

And it appears that "pseudoskeptic" is the word that a believer applies to anyone who doesn't believe what he believes --- not because this refutes the arguments of the skeptic, nor because it substantiates the arguments of the believer, but frankly because some people --- we've seen a few lately --- really do believe that this sort of whiny psychobabble is a substitute for argument.

Instead of answering honest doubters requesting evidence, the believer merely has to proclaim that their doubt is not honest and to refuse to supply them with the evidence they ask for on the grounds that they would "refuse to accept it", which, if you have a belief entirely unsubstatiated by real evidence, is a great way to get off the hook when you're asked for it. He can then brag about how "open minded " he is.

By this process of lunatic fantasy, the believer can substitute a theory showing that everyone who disagrees with him is stupid, dogmatic, etc for the production of evidence which most people would find convincing --- which must be a great relief to him; and it is also a fantasy of personal superiority --- which must also be pleasant for him.

The downside of substituting this fantasy for real debate is that to call a skeptic a "pseudoskeptic" doesn't answer a single one of his arguments --- it's an empty, worthless ad hominem. But it pleases little minds.

That does say a rather lot about your own use of the 'ad hominem' "whiny psychobabble", Dr! At least 'pseudo skeptic' has a defined basis (Truzzi) rather than the subjective term you used above. It's use, Dr, defeats your argument. and enhances Truzzi's

 

[Jeff Corey]

...It's use...,

"It is use", then, Dr?
Jest checken.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The point behind that example was:

"Some adults believe patently absurd things with all sincerity."

Certainly. Just none of them believe in the moon being made of green cheese. The point is, why use a silly dramatic false example? Just use a real example, like flat earth. I'd have no arguments with that.

 

[Open Mind]

No; in my experience, people who are acquainted with rules of evidence and/or the scientific process *tend* to be more open minded. More open minded than those who simply believe in this or that and do not require (or desire in many cases) evidence that may or may not alter their beliefs.

There are some myths about science and scientists that need to be dispelled. Science gets mistaken as a body of knowledge for its method. Scientists are regarded as having superhuman abilities of rationality inside objectivity. Many studies in the psychology of science, however, indicate that scientists are at least as dogmatic and authoritarian, at least as foolish and illogical as everybody else, including when they do science. In one study on falsifiability, an experiment was described, an hypothesis was given to the participants, the results were stated, and the test was to see whether the participants would say, "This falsifies the hypothesis". The results indicated denial, since most of the scientists refused to falsify their hypotheses, sticking with them despite a lack of evidence! Strangely, clergymen were much more frequent in recognizing that the hypotheses were false.

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

 

[T'ai Chi]

Why can't it possibly support my case?

It is not actual evidence, it is testimony.

Similarly I could have related a story about a mentally retarded adult that I know who believes ridiculous things (he believes that cows jump over the moon!)

You could, but it wouldn't be evidence. It would be testimony.

I know from my own experience that you are wrong.

All you'd have to do is show some evidence, not stories.

Almost anyone can easily see that your claim to omniscience

Strawman.

but you simply lack the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Ad hom.

Outright dishonesty.

Ad hom.

I repeat, please tell me how anyone can provide evidence of what someone truly believes without asking them what they believe?
[/quite]

Oh, you can ask them, and that is evidence, but how am I supposed to know the response of your child or or an adult who claims to truly believe the moon is made of green cheese? Do you have their testimony on tape? On paper in the form of a survey? What? Do you expect or demand people to believe your story as actual evidence? You only have your stories, and that is not sufficient.

you are completely intellectually dishonest

Ad hom.

it is possible for someone to know simply because they believe themselves to be omniscient.

Strawman.

on you to prove how you can know what all people, ever, in the history of the universe believe/believed.

Strawman.

That, again, is intellectual dishonesty.

Ad hom.

but your dishonesty is plain for all to see.

Ad hom.

, you are sloppy, you jump to conclusions without properly considering the evidence.

Ad hom.

Just show some evidence of adults who believe moon green cheese etc.. You keep pontificating here, asking questions. Just show the evidence of what I am requesting. You haven't.

More dishonesty

Ad hom.

you[/i] to provide evidence for your claim to know the actions and beliefs of all people, ever, in the history of the universe

Strawman.

outright dishonesty on your part.

Ad hom.

I do not expect you to take my word that my child believed it.

Exactly! So show some actual evidence so we don't have to take your stories as gospel. Can you, or would you like to ask more questions to dodge?

or are you not, going to show evidence that indicates that it is possible for you to know the actions and beliefs of all people, ever, in the history of the universe?

Strawman.

Why should I? It's of no interest to me.

You ask many, many questions about it and it is of no interest? If you are a skeptic not a scoffer, you will ask him and find out how he sampled. Please, do it.

It's you I'm calling out.

I have plants that are more intimidating.

Since that is all we know, then what is the basis for your numerous accusations about poor sampling etc?

I repeat: ask Claus how he sampled. Please, just do it and see.

like the recent incident where you stalked jj implying he had made a mathematical error when in fact the mathematical error was yours.

"stalked", please, don't be as emotional as jj.

I admitted my mathematical error. JJ also admitted his error (trying to take an inner product of vectors of unequal length). So what is the problem?

You have claimed that you know the actions and beliefs of all people, ever, in the history of the universe[/i

Strawman.

The number is irrelevent? Are you kidding?

For inference, the method of sampling is important, not the numbers. If the samples weren't random, how do you know your sample is representative of the population? You have yet to answer this without constructing non real-world scenarios.

So if Claus chose 2 books from a population of 2, makes no difference to whether Claus chose 2 books from a population of 2 million?

We're not talking about your highly artificial and irrelevant examples. We're talking about real life.

And you claim to know something about statistics? Sheesh!

Ad hom and strawman.

As for the details of the study, Claus gave all the detail that was required to support the inference he made.

Ask him specifically how he sampled. Just do it, you'll see..

Or do you expect Claus to somehow eliminate global stupidity?

Ad hom.

Listen, if you sample an entire population, then any (reasonable) inference you draw from that sample is valid for that population.

We're not talking about your highly artificial and irrelevant examples. We're talking about real life.

It makes no difference if you sample randomly or not if you sample the entire population. And that is the case here.

Where is your evidence that the charts he got constitute the entire population of sun sign charts?!!!???!???

Some charts were obtained.

No, you said these sampled charts are all the charts, period. You just said that above, now you change your story. Which is it? Do those 7 charts constitute a sample or the entire population of sun sign charts in the world?

The population in question is the population of astrologers who use those charts.

AGAIN, since you dodged it the last time: those specific 7 charts, or sun-sign charts in general?

Because, as I asked you before, would it be wrong to infer to a population of 8 from a convenience sample of 7 for example?

We're not talking about your highly artificial and irrelevant examples. We're talking about real life. Are YOU seriously claiming that there are only 8 such sun-sign charts in the world? Is that all your argument boils down to?

You claimed that no-one, ever, in the history of the universe had believed that etc.

Strawman.

Lying about it doesn't do you any credit.

Ad hom.

I couldn't care less how he sampled them,

And that is why you are behaving like a scoffer and not a skeptic. You don't care. You don't want to play by the standard rules of science or, in this case, of statistical reasoning. You don't care about the method of sampling, even though that is the central issue.

You are just lying -

Ad hom.

Who said that the charts in question were Danish or from Danish astrologers? I'm not going to let you wriggle out of that one - please give me a specific answer as to why I should assume the charts to be Danish?

If you read the article you would see some of the names. You could then search for those names. If you had read the article, and if you have done some work, and not just scoffed, that is.

It does not if the "sample" by definition is the entire population.

Again, present your evidence that there are only 7 sun-sign charts in the world. You have yet to do this, and your entire argument hinges on this claim.

He sampled a few specific charts to make an inference about astrologers who use those charts.

But he talks about astrologers in general. How can he possibly know his sample was representative?

I am frankly amazed that someone who claims to work in statistics is blind to the fact that there are two independent populations in this instance.

Ad hom and strawman.

Sheesh! This is elementary!

Ad hom.

Obviously! I've explained it again above, hopefully in terms simple enough so that even a statistician may understand it!

Ad hom.

I agree that Claus has switched context apparently referring to a wider group of astrologers in other contexts, yes, that could have been clearer.

And there you go. "apparently referring to a wider group of astrologer" means he made inference to some larger population, when it wasn't warranted, as I've been saying all along.

you only have to look at the horoscopes in a selection of daily newspapers to determine that astrologers in general disagree more often than they agree.

No, you don't 'only have to look', you have to do some analysis of the actual data.

And once again, what makes you say they are Danish charts?

Strawman. I didn't say all of them were. See above.

Is it possible that a Chinese author of Swedish descent possibly copied a chart from elsewhere that had been authored by a Nigerian gentleman of Australian descent?

Strawman.

a) You have a memory problem
b) You are deliberately trying to be irritating and avoid

Ad hominems.

You are a persistently uncivil poster, you stalk people, you accuse, you lie, you evade, duck and dodge

Ad hom.

without claiming paranormal powers please.

Strawman.

If we take away the strawmen and ad homs, and unanswered claims, your post is pretty short.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

Which in no way suggests that my opinion is unfounded. Truzzi is simply pointing out that scientists are human. However, any dogmatic pursuit of an idea is by (my) definition *not* science.

 

[drkitten]

Dr's, it seems that 'closed minded skeptics' really means what Truzzi calls pseudo skeptics. There are examples in this very thread and, to be brutally honest, those examples are an insult to skepticism.

Who?

 

[drkitten]

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

It’s very difficult to prove that a person is a closed minded skeptic, open minded or really anything else. We can makes some determination if they habitually make pre-judgmental statement, we could say that they seem closed minded.

Except that it doesn't appear that difficult -- certainly, the woo-ocrats have no difficulty "recognizing" that a person is closed minded by the second or third post from that person. Ignorant Ian, for example, has no problem "identifying" that the MAJORITY of skeptics are closed-minded, despite the fact that he has not been able to identify a single one by name as being closed-minded (and he clings to the refuted out-of-context Susan Blake quote as a lifeline, in the hopes that we will ignore the
refutations when he refers to it a third or a fourth time).

Similarly, "DrWoo" posted that "it seems that 'closed minded skeptics' really means what Truzzi calls pseudo skeptics. There are examples in this very thread" -- but of course didn't name names or cite examples. I read the thread. I don't see those examples. Perhaps I'm missing something -- or more likely those examples don't exist. And that's no an a priori judgement; that's an experimental finding.

Why is it only difficult to demonstrate -- not prove, a mere demonstration will suffice -- that a person is a closed-minded skeptic only when one is asked for evidence? Could it possibly be that such a "closed-minded skeptic" is a woo myth, and there is no more evidence for it than for astrological validity?

But I'll take you at your word -- "if they habitually make pre-judgmental statement, we could say that they seem closed minded." So find me someone -- ANYONE -- who habitually makes such statements.

 

[DrWoo]

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

Except that it doesn't appear that difficult -- certainly, the woo-ocrats have no difficulty "recognizing" that a person is closed minded by the second or third post from that person. Ignorant Ian, for example, has no problem "identifying" that the MAJORITY of skeptics are closed-minded, despite the fact that he has not been able to identify a single one by name as being closed-minded (and he clings to the refuted out-of-context Susan Blake quote as a lifeline, in the hopes that we will ignore the
refutations when he refers to it a third or a fourth time).

Similarly, "DrWoo" posted that "it seems that 'closed minded skeptics' really means what Truzzi calls pseudo skeptics. There are examples in this very thread" -- but of course didn't name names or cite examples. I read the thread. I don't see those examples. Perhaps I'm missing something -- or more likely those examples don't exist. And that's no an a priori judgement; that's an experimental finding.

Why is it only difficult to demonstrate -- not prove, a mere demonstration will suffice -- that a person is a closed-minded skeptic only when one is asked for evidence? Could it possibly be that such a "closed-minded skeptic" is a woo myth, and there is no more evidence for it than for astrological validity?

But I'll take you at your word -- "if they habitually make pre-judgmental statement, we could say that they seem closed minded." So find me someone -- ANYONE -- who habitually makes such statements.

Dr K, using the measure of Truzzi, are you really claiming that pseudo-skepticism or closed-mindedness has not been evidenced in this thread? If so, I am sceptical of such claims.

 

[DrWoo]

Dr K, I don't think naming names is helpful here.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Dr K, I don't think naming names is helpful here.

Not helpful or not possible?

 

[DrWoo]

Certainly possible. I suspect you already know that!

It is just not helpful in respect of starting flame wars.