Skepticism and The Normal

[JonnyFive]

randi's two value argument is this.

I am a magician, and even so, I know that the physical laws of the universe as currently understood by scientists is true in all environments, therefore, Steorn is a fraudulent company.

a third value argument is this.

The laws of thermodynamics make claims regarding energy that have been verified for over 100 years in experimental physics. Claims that violate this law are not likely, but perhaps possible, and should be tested when reasonable claimants have taken reasonable steps to assure us against fraud or human error. Therefore, we do not yet know what Steorn has, but the likely hood of them being fraudulent seems highly unlikely at this stage. Steorn claims that they do not take thier claim lightly, and have tested in rigoursly for years. They also claim that they already know what the 12 scientists will conclude, and request that we suspend our belief until their tests are finished.

Notice how Randi's argument needs to have Steorn has a fraud or hoax for it to be correct, steorn 'must' be fraudulent. That's also a claim that can be verified, and that is where the argument crumbles.They must be fraudulent because his truth values are either true or false, there is not third value possibility.

There is no "third value" here. Either Steorn is fradulent or they aren't. Our personal opinions have absolutely nothing to do with empirical truth or falsehood of their claims. If Randi is wrong about them, that simply makes him wrong. It doesn't somehow make anything more or less true.

If I claim to make a magical device that breaks the laws of physics that in fact exists, my claim is true. It would require the re-examination of hundreds of years of physics research, but the claim would remain true. If I didn't demonstrate the claim, many people would rightly claim it is extremely unlikely to be true, but that wouldn't make it less true either.

Similarly, if my device did nothing, my belief that it worked would not make the claim less objectively false.

I still fail to see how your "third value" applies to objective truthfulness, and I am coming to believe from your examples that it is derived from a fundamental misunderstanding of terms. You talk about Randi's "truth values" but what you refer to is his opinion. He appears to be of the opinion that Steorn is fradulent. That doesn't influence whether or not they actually are fradulent.

As skeptics, most of us probably put a lot less weight on someone's claims than on the evidence they show that those claims are, in fact, true. Thus, we tend to assume the default position that amazing, laws-of-physics-breaking claims are probably not true, unless we are shown convincing evidence to the contrary.

Again, that doesn't influence objective truth. If someone shows me a 100% efficient power source that can be shown to actually work, I'll buy the damn thing.

 

[WWHP]

After reading this through, I'm actually a little glad my last couple of posts were overlooked...

Bubblefish, have you recently taken a few courses in PoMo literary theory? I kinda get that sense. You seem to use a number of the debating tactics of capital-T Theorists -- including obfuscating trivial truisms by wrapping them in ornate, overwrought language, and when pinned down on points, attempting to wriggle out by stating that you're simply being playful with language, thus avoiding any responsibility for the wrongness of the ideas, highlighting your superior rolleyes intellect, and implying that the rest of us are too dense to get the joke.

An idea that can't be expressed clearly usually isn't very good. And if it has to be dressed in emperor's clothes... well... you get my drift.

No, I dont get your drift, or your assertion, or your point. Since your no longer addressing the topic of this thread, I am not going to respond further until you do.



BF

 

[WWHP]

It is times (and posters) like this that make me want to bang my heard aginst a wall!
State clearly, no samantics. No cutesy, witty insults to divert from an answer. Argue the proposition, not the person. And above all, no high falutt'n philosophical bull**** can mask a threadbare premise.

end of soap box

good, come back when you're willing to discuss the topic, thanks

 

[WWHP]

What actually happened at the Bad Science forum is that bubblebrain posted a ***** video of a really badly designed experiment into "qi" with his famous Dr Lo.

what happened actually at badscience.net is summed up perfectly in my last rebuttals, which apparently niether you nor anyone addressed other than the typical and non critical ad hom.

http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1597&start=0

read for yourself

 

[Garrette]

Bubblefish,

I have been considering how to respond, including a detailed response to each of your posts. Aside from the fact that that would be incredibly time-consuming, it would be redundant as I (mostly) agree with (most of) the other posters who have responded to you.

Let me summarize my position, though:

1. The "third value" is meaningless. I stand by that statement. I initially considered it meaningless simply because it was an unneeded additional label for something which already has a label, one which is far less confusing. I now further consider it meaningless because your use of it in this thread has been inconsistent.

2. Your concerns about James Randi are not only misplaced but founded on a shifting sea of illogic and cherry-picking. His admission of being a charlatan is clearly in reference to his performances, outside of which he has shown himself to be far more honest than many in supposedly more honest professions. His comments about scientists not being good at detecting deception is true; that is not their forte. Magicians are good at that. Finally, your rather petty concern about Randi possibly employing magician's tricks (or psychological tricks) to keep some people out of the Challenge Test is silly. If you are admitting that, despite the legally-binding safeguards built into the Challenge by the Challenge Rules, a skilled magician is capable of fooling even intelligent people armed with legitimate powers, then you must also admit that such fooling occurs when there are no such safeguards, for instance when Uri Geller performs or dowsers perform or Steorn refuses to perform. Hence, the default position is there can be no true demonstrations of supernatural or supranatural powers.

3. Your talk about this philosophy (from which you get the idea of a third value) is a string of words supporting no substance. If philosophy has any use in the type of discussion you appear to desire, it is only insofar as it informs that discussion. The philosophy you refer to informs nothing, confuses the discussion, and has as its only purpose its own propagation.

As I said many posts ago and someone else said more recently, it is very much Sokal-esque. I suggest you research him a bit.

 

[WWHP]

Bubblefish,
First, skepticism never claims to have any access to "truth." Truth is an entrirely abstract concept, and skeptics prefer to limit themselves to dealing in fact.

Skepticism perhaps, but human nature is distinct, and skeptics are human, and although I have found a few reasonable posters on this thread that I truly believe are critical thinkers, I'm finding many more are guided by philosophy than facts.

I am a skeptic about all claims, I am a skeptic myself, I dont need anyone lecturing me on skepticism, thanks.

Second, the JREF is not about science. Its mandate is not to explore and investigate the paranormal. Its purpose is to educate the public against people making claims that cannot be shown to be reliable.

Then JREF should not make claims regarding tech companies like Steorn, they should stick with 1 800 Psychics and spinning PSItech wheels.

 

[Garrette]

Then JREF should not make claims regarding tech companies like Steorn, they should stick with 1 800 Psychics and spinning PSItech wheels.

Don't confuse this forum with JREF. As for JREF, I haven't researched it, but I imagine, with a fair amount of confidence, that their position, as stated by Randi, goes something like this:

1. It is JREF's opinion that Steorn cannot provide a device which does what they claim it can. This opinion is based on a comprehensive layman's knowledge of physics.

2. It is fact that Steorn has not demonstrated that it can produce a device which does what they claim it can.

3. Steorn is welcome to prove us wrong. The JREF Challenge is an appropriate venue.


Challenging Steorn is completely within the purview of JREF.

 

[Basilio]

good, come back when you're willing to discuss the topic, thanks

Wow, I am touched, truly touched, that I rated a little slap-down from a master of philosophical discussion.

Full marks and a gold star for you.

Basilio

 

[WWHP]

There is no "third value" here. Either Steorn is fradulent or they aren't.

it is the lack of the third value that led Randi to make a public claim that steorn IS fraudulent, however. If he simply looked into them a bit more, which would be a neccesity if he used the third value, he would not have made that claim, opinion, or what have you. How many people dismissed Steorn's claim after reading Randi's 'opinion'?


Prior to invasion, Iraq either had WMD, or they didnt. Yet because this question was not properly explored in the public debate regarding the third value (as in, we dont know, we need to give the UN inspectors more time) then perhaps a whole distinct cycle of events would have occured. See how damaging bivalent 'opinions' can be?

Our personal opinions have absolutely nothing to do with empirical truth or falsehood of their claims. If Randi is wrong about them, that simply makes him wrong. It doesn't somehow make anything more or less true.

agreed. and randi was more than likely flat out wrong about Steorn, and unneccarily so.

I still fail to see how your "third value" applies to objective truthfulness, and I am coming to believe from your examples that it is derived from a fundamental misunderstanding of terms.

because the third value is about being honest when we simply do not know, it's not that difficult. Randi doenst know anything about Steorn, yet we dont see him waxing on about how much he doenst know about Steorn, it's not flattering to do so I imagine.

You talk about Randi's "truth values" but what you refer to is his opinion. He appears to be of the opinion that Steorn is fradulent. That doesn't influence whether or not they actually are fradulent.

I'm not saying that it does, that's not the argument. His opinion is a proposition, and it's false and far from reality.

As skeptics, most of us probably put a lot less weight on someone's claims than on the evidence they show that those claims are, in fact, true. Thus, we tend to assume the default position that amazing, laws-of-physics-breaking claims are probably not true, unless we are shown convincing evidence to the contrary.

Probably not true, neither true and neither false, probably not false, are all third value qualities and that was not Randi's argument either.

And please, do I have to continue to be lectured on skepticism? Skeptics are people who either use two or three values like anyone else when considering issues.

Again, that doesn't influence objective truth. If someone shows me a 100% efficient power source that can be shown to actually work, I'll buy the damn thing.

your values of truth dictate how you approach objective truth. WMD being a 'mystery' or unknown before invasion WAS an OBJECTIVE TRUTH to everyone except Iraq.


BF

 

[JonnyFive]

what happened actually at badscience.net is summed up perfectly in my last rebuttals, which apparently niether you nor anyone addressed other than the typical and non critical ad hom.

http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1597&start=0

read for yourself

I thought you weren't going to link to the discussions in order to remain polite.

 

[WWHP]

And since it is a mystery! I might be James Bond, Superman, ALF or even Charles Xavier.

so your interpretation of the third value means fictional characters can come to life on a discussion board? That's a false claim, not a mysterious one.

True or False? No one can tell!That is a false statement. I did not welcome anyone with the words 'little flower'.

No, i did.

And what, pray tell, is fake about me?The ninja-like grace in your evasion is noted.

no, the fake critical thinking your applying.

Ok. Is Qi an actual force?

I dont know

Oh I am sorry. Did I confuse you?

no, your just annoying me

I never claimed that I was invinceble. But if you think Mr. Bond is invulnreable... you obviously need to read a couple of books and watch the movies.

thanks for being my entertainment guide, start a blog, hoser.

Ahh now we're getting somewhere. A couple of demonstrations of Qi under controled conditions would be a good start.

agreed.

Good night. Sleep tight. Don't let the cobras bite.

another poem, eh?

Well... either you have no clues as to what a Haiku is... or...

or I have clues to what a haiku is....

Anyway, Science is beautiful.

agreed

Hah! You are wrong.

naturally, I must be wrong for you to be right, that's how your 'critical thinking' operates.



BF

 

[WWHP]

I thought you weren't going to link to the discussions in order to remain polite.

cat's already out of the bag, they followed me here anyway.

 

[JonnyFive]

it is the lack of the third value that led Randi to make a public claim that steorn IS fraudulent, however. If he simply looked into them a bit more, which would be a neccesity if he used the third value, he would not have made that claim, opinion, or what have you. How many people dismissed Steorn's claim after reading Randi's 'opinion'?

(snip)

because the third value is about being honest when we simply do not know, it's not that difficult. Randi doenst know anything about Steorn, yet we dont see him waxing on about how much he doenst know about Steorn, it's not flattering to do so I imagine.

(snip)

Probably not true, neither true and neither false, probably not false, are all third value qualities and that was not Randi's argument either.

Oh, so you're saying that your "third value" is any indeterminate position based on a lack of knowledge of a statement's absolute truth or falsehood.

Then your term appears to be totally useless. It doesn't affect the actual truth of a statement, and it describes nothing. You're just referring to various probability statements, which can easily be stated. If you want to re-word those conditions as some special truth value in a very complex definition of truth, then be my guest. It just seems kind of pointless, unless you're deliberately trying to be obscure.

"neither true and neither false" (which, by the way, should be written "neither true nor false") is pretty meaningless too, when talking about truth (in the objective sense, again). The things which can fit that descriptive are subjective statements, and therefore cannot be described in terms of true/false to begin with. "Oranges are awesome" is neither true nor false (it is subjective), but "Oranges are fruit" is true by definition of the word "fruit".

And please, do I have to continue to be lectured on skepticism? Skeptics are people who either use two or three values like anyone else when considering issues.

A skeptic is someone that questions a statement, or assumes a position of doubt when not provided with evidence. So if that's what you mean by "people who either use two or three values like anyone else" then I'll leave you alone about this. If you mean something else, then please explain this cryptic statement and explain how it is meaningfully descriptive if skeptics act "like anyone else".

ETA: I'm not lecturing, by the way. it just seems that your definition of "skeptic" seems to be rather unorthodox, to the point where it means nothing to me, so I'd like clarification.

 

[JonnyFive]

cat's already out of the bag, they followed me here anyway.

Fair enough, I was just curious.

 

[WWHP]

Bubblefish,

I have been considering how to respond, including a detailed response to each of your posts. Aside from the fact that that would be incredibly time-consuming, it would be redundant as I (mostly) agree with (most of) the other posters who have responded to you.

well then if you wish to back out of our discussion, I will address the argument with them instead.

Let me summarize my position, though:

1. The "third value" is meaningless. I stand by that statement. I initially considered it meaningless simply because it was an unneeded additional label for something which already has a label, one which is far less confusing. I now further consider it meaningless because your use of it in this thread has been inconsistent.

an example instead of an blanket assertion please. I dont think it has been inconsistant at all, and either respectfully argue that conclusion with me or retract it.

I already argued against your claim that it is 'meaningless'. Repeating your proposition without addressing mine isnt an argument or a discussion, I am sure you can agree. I would'nt rely or assume the other posters are going to be able to maintain their arguments if I were you.

2. His admission of being a charlatan is clearly in reference to his performances, outside of which he has shown himself to be far more honest than many in supposedly more honest professions. His comments about scientists not being good at detecting deception is true; that is not their forte. Magicians are good at that.

I'm not arguing the contrary. I am saying that because he is a magician, I am skeptical, as I am skeptical about magicians in general. Critical thinking would state something like "James Randi admits to being a charlatan inside of his performance", not "james randi admits to being a charlatan inside of his performances so therefore he only misleads when he says he does"

Finally, your rather petty concern about Randi possibly employing magician's tricks (or psychological tricks) to keep some people out of the Challenge Test is silly.

I'm not saying he does that, I am asking a question, as in 'How do we know for any objective certainty that he is NOT doing that?"

If you are admitting that, despite the legally-binding safeguards built into the Challenge by the Challenge Rules, a skilled magician is capable of fooling even intelligent people armed with legitimate powers, then you must also admit that such fooling occurs when there are no such safeguards, for instance when Uri Geller performs or dowsers perform or Steorn refuses to perform. Hence, the default position is there can be no true demonstrations of supernatural or supranatural powers.

not following your logic here. Randi himself says that a skilled magician is capable of fooling intelligent people armed with legitimate powers, see the alpha project.

Secondly, I dont understand how you equate STeorn with Gellar. Steorn is taking steps to prove their claim and 'perform' it within the standards of science.

Thirdly, the default position of 'there can be no demonstration of..." does not seem to follow from points one and two.

3. Your talk about this philosophy (from which you get the idea of a third value) is a string of words supporting no substance.

huh? not only is there substance, but there is practical application.

If philosophy has any use in the type of discussion you appear to desire, it is only insofar as it informs that discussion. The philosophy you refer to informs nothing, confuses the discussion, and has as its only purpose its own propagation.

Another blanket statement. I request you argue that with me.

Skeptics, scientists, philosophers are concerned with 'truth'. The third value leads to truth and true and honest statements. Two values force us to 'fill in the blanks' with opinion which function as objectivly true for many misinformed people, and often leads us to confusion and in the case of Iraq, chaos.

As I said many posts ago and someone else said more recently, it is very much Sokal-esque. I suggest you research him a bit.

Already familiar, thanks.

I request your address my arguments and not simply repeat your old ones nor make the assumption that other posters are making your arguments for you.


BF

 

[Buckaroo]

No, I dont get your drift, or your assertion, or your point. Since your no longer addressing the topic of this thread, I am not going to respond further until you do.

BF

But that's the crux of it, and what I and others have alluded to. There really is no topic here. Your third value is a trivially true assertion dressed up in garish emperor's clothes, but is really buck-assed nekkid. Any arguments built on it are therefore nonsense on stilts. But if we point this out we're "off-topic?" Why should we be forced to argue on your terms, against vapor?

Threads evolve. Get over it.

 

[Katana]

But that's the crux of it, and what I and others have alluded to. There really is no topic here. Your third value is a trivially true assertion dressed up in garish emperor's clothes, but is really buck-assed nekkid. Any arguments built on it are therefore nonsense on stilts. But if we point this out we're "off-topic?" Why should we be forced to argue on your terms, against vapor?

Threads evolve. Get over it.

What has this one done?

 

[Basilio]

You know, I never thought that a statement, particularly a factualy true statement, could be considered sort of a Schrödinger's cat, that is, neither true nor faslse. If this is one of the points that is trying to be made, then it spells the death knell for college debate teams!

basilio

 

[Buckaroo]

What has this one done?

Good point!

 

[WWHP]

Oh, so you're saying that your "third value" is any indeterminate position based on a lack of knowledge of a statement's absolute truth or falsehood.

it is indeterminate about the true or false value, but it IS determinate about it being 'unknown', as 'unknown' is a powerful piece of information that can directly influence strategy, opinion, and critical thinking, i.e. the war in Iraq as an example.

As an ancedotal side bar. How many critical thinkers on this forum, Randi included, agreed with the decision for war in 2003? You dont have to answer that with me, just think about it, and if many here agreed, was that an example of critical thinking producing an effective result or decision?

Then your term appears to be totally useless. It doesn't affect the actual truth of a statement, and it describes nothing.

It describes the point of view of the person making the statement critically. It is not 'useless', it is the most valuable consideration when we are faced with any 'unknown'. and we are faced with a gazillion unknowns personally and collectivly on a daily basis.

You're just referring to various probability statements, which can easily be stated. If you want to re-word those conditions as some special truth value in a very complex definition of truth, then be my guest. It just seems kind of pointless, unless you're deliberately trying to be obscure.

Johnny, in all respect, and perhaps this is my fault, explaining this soley using text is challenging at times, but your misinformed about the third value. I am NOT referring to various probablity statements, i am referring to a determined statement, as in 'I DONT honestly KNOW, or WE DONT honestly KNOW'.

Imagine if the Bush administration said "we honestly dont know about WMD in iraq" Tell me or argue how that would have been a useless statement in 2002, because if what your saying is true, then it would have been a useless statement in 2002, right?

"neither true and neither false" (which, by the way, should be written "neither true nor false") is pretty meaningless too, when talking about truth (in the objective sense, again).

I think your trying to make it self refrential, I dont know, but again, how is the statement in 2002 that "claims of WMD in Iraq cannot be determined to be either true nor false at this time" meaningless? That was the most meaningful statement one could make at that time.

The things which can fit that descriptive are subjective statements, and therefore cannot be described in terms of true/false to begin with. "Oranges are awesome" is neither true nor false (it is subjective), but "Oranges are fruit" is true by definition of the word "fruit".

not in this framework that I'm using. in this framework that I outlined a few posts back, "oranges are awesome" is a 2 value, false, subjective,opinion, true to the experience, false to all objectivly.

A skeptic is someone that questions a statement, or assumes a position of doubt when not provided with evidence. So if that's what you mean by "people who either use two or three values like anyone else" then I'll leave you alone about this.

pretty much yes, my point was that skeptics question statements, this is true, and question them using either two or three values.

ETA: I'm not lecturing, by the way. it just seems that your definition of "skeptic" seems to be rather unorthodox, to the point where it means nothing to me, so I'd like clarification.

by skeptic I mean what the dictionary means. I dont believe I have an unorthodox view of skepticism, I consider myself a skeptic in the standard sense of the term, i just include it to be skeptical of ALL claims, including those made by scientists, other skeptics, academics as well as mystics, poets, or charlatans. I believe I am consistant with that, but if I am not, will you please explain to me where i am not so i dont make the same mistake twice?



BF