The Mentality of Skeptics

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by jakesteele

Law of the “Official Story”™ (aka. Safe refuge in a harbor) – The Official Story is always right. I’ts true because it’s true/if it’s true it can’t be false. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then it was; proof positive, case closed. No question, no doubt, total acceptance. This is similar to an Appeal to Authority, but in their case they say it isn’t, because if it’s true, then it can’t be an Appeal to Authority because the OS is impeccable and beyond reproach

Perhaps I am too deep in the mindset to see where we are lacking. Can you give some examples of Official Stories that are more deserving of doubt and uncertainty than they are given on this board?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

What utter, utter bollocks. Forming a provisional conclusion is as much part of the sceptical process as re-evaluating that conclusion as and when new evidence becomes available.

Dave

The whole point of skepticism is to not form any conclusions. Forming a conclusion is anti-skeptical, but not necessarily wrong.

 

[Dancing David]

He promised change. He just didn't say it was for the worse.

Yeah well, thems what voted for him, they has that right. I disagree and hate the consequences of the shin kicking being engaged in by both parties.

 

[William Parcher]

You might notice that proponents of woo often fit into the denialist category as well. I think that goes to show just how unskeptical some of these skeptics are.

Do you regard yourself as a proponent of woo, with the alien Bigfoot stuff?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

What utter, utter bollocks. Forming a provisional conclusion is as much part of the sceptical process as re-evaluating that conclusion as and when new evidence becomes available.

Dave

Seconded with gusto

 

[Dancing David]

The main points:

Some skeptics don't like ambiguity because ambiguity gives them anxiety. These type of skeptics are debunkers at heart because debunking things gets rid of their uncertainty. A lot of times they'll do a good job at debunking something, but sometimes when the answer isn't clear, they'll still try to debunk the evidence in whatever way they can and end up being wrong.

Skepticism on its own has nothing to do with taking a stance on something; it's about doubting and questioning. By forming a conclusion on something, you're basically letting go of skepticism. That isn't necessarily wrong, but if you're doing it wrong and you're doing it for the purpose of getting rid of uncertainty, then you're just a skeptic by name or a denialist.

It's hard to tell the difference between a skeptic and denialist because they blend in so well, but it's possible if you pay attention to their behaviour. Here's a chart that lists the differences between a skeptic and a denialist

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/wGp5iki.png[/qimg]

You might notice that proponents of woo often fit into the denialist category as well. I think that goes to show just how unskeptical some of these skeptics are.

Hi,
A chart with some arbitrary distinctions does little to make your case at all.

It continues to be a case by assertion and generalization.

No data, no evidence, a blog post and now a word chart.

So where is your research analysis that makes your point?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

The whole point of skepticism is to not form any conclusions. Forming a conclusion is anti-skeptical, but not necessarily wrong.

I'm sorry, but that is complete *********. Skepticism does not mean that you constantly go around saying "Gee, I don't know, anything's possible!"

Forming conclusions without evidence- unskeptical.

Drawing conclusions after gathering evidence and applying the scientific process- skeptical.

If you tell me you had a tuna fish sandwich for lunch, and I refuse to believe you even after you show me the empty tuna can, I'm being irrationally obstinate.

If you tell me about an alien hybrid sasquatch, and insist it's real with absolutely no evidence, just wild conjecture, I'm going to have a few doubts, sorry.

 

[Pixel42]

The whole point of skepticism is to not form any conclusions. Forming a conclusion is anti-skeptical, but not necessarily wrong.

The whole point of scepticism is to form the provisional conclusion that's most likely to be correct, and be prepared to re-evaluate it if necessary.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

If you tell me you had a tuna fish sandwich for lunch, and I refuse to believe you even after you show me the empty tuna can, I'm being irrationally obstinate.

Yes you would be, but for all you know, I might have been lying and that might have been someone else's empty can. If I was lying, then it would mean I've successfully tricked you. You would not have been tricked if you maintained your skepticism.

The whole point of scepticism is to form the provisional conclusion that's most likely to be correct

That just doesn't go with definition of skepticism.

noun
1.
a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
"these claims were treated with skepticism"
synonyms: doubt, doubtfulness, a pinch of salt; More
2.
PHILOSOPHY
the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.

 

[Kid Eager]

Yes you would be, but for all you know, I might have been lying and that might have been someone else's empty can. If I was lying, then it would mean I've successfully tricked you. You would not have been tricked if you maintained your skepticism.



That just doesn't jive with definition of skepticism.

noun
1.
a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
"these claims were treated with skepticism"
synonyms: doubt, doubtfulness, a pinch of salt; More
2.
PHILOSOPHY
the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.

You forgot this bit:

skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2]

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Yes you would be, but for all you know, I might have been lying and that might have been someone else's empty can. If I was lying, then it would mean I've successfully tricked you. You would not have been tricked if you maintained your skepticism.



That just doesn't jive with definition of skepticism.

Read Pixel's post above yours, please. Conclusions are always provisional, that doesn't mean it is unskeptical to come to one based on evidence.

Think of all the situations in life that would become impossible to navigate if we never came to a conclusion because we could never e sure we were absolutely, 100% right. Doctors would never be able to treat a patient because they couldn't be sure of a diagnosis; engineers would never build anything for fear of missing a variable. Life would grind to a halt.

 

[William Parcher]

The claim that Tyrannosaurus rex is extinct is a provisional claim made by science.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Letting go of skepticism isn't necessarily wrong. If you have enough evidence to believe something, then it makes sense to believe it.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

That just doesn't go with definition of skepticism.

noun
1.
a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
"these claims were treated with skepticism"
synonyms: doubt, doubtfulness, a pinch of salt; More
2.
PHILOSOPHY
the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.

That doesn't say what you think it says. Approaching a subject with a healthy amount of doubt and uncertainty, and still eventually coming to a provisional conclusion about the truth (or lack thereof) of an hypothesis, are not antithetical concepts.

 

[William Parcher]

Letting go of skepticism isn't necessarily wrong. If you have enough evidence to believe something, then it makes sense to believe it.

Evidence such as the many Bigfoot encounter reports and the Patterson-Gimlin film?

 

[Pixel42]

That just doesn't go with definition of skepticism.

Yes it does. The point of all the questioning, doubting and examinng is to maximise the chance of reaching the correct conclusion. If you just accept everything at face value you are more likely to be mistaken.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Letting go of skepticism isn't necessarily wrong. If you have enough evidence to believe something, then it makes sense to believe it.

NO. Once again: forming a conclusion about something without evidence is unskeptical. Coming to a PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION about something after examining evidence is NOT unskeptical. Please stop saying this over and over again, after it has been continually addressed by multiple people. Your unique definition of skepticism is not shared by the majority. No one needs to "let go" of anything in order to come to a conclusion.

 

[Axxman300]

True Story:

Last semester I had to do a poster presentation for my Geology class on a specific local rock outcrop or geological feature. Mine was a nifty Hobnail Granite formation right on the ocean with nice thick veins of feldspar running through it. The prominent feature was a feldspar spin resembling a fish's fin. The rock had not been milled, or altered by human hands.

My professor put on the spot and asked how it was possible that the feldspar was protruding from the granite, and I said that the feldspar was more dense than the granite and resisted the erosion of the wave action.

I got an A.

My point?

My conclusion was based extended field study, photographs, measurements, and observation (I went to the outcrop at both low and high tide). I then combined all of that with what I had already learned in the classroom and lab. I used my skeptical skills to make the evaluation based on the evidence I had.

The outcrop had once been anchorage for a cannery, and I could have hypothesized that the erosion and exposure of the feldspar was due to chemical wasting from the fishing industry. The problem with that is that there are similar feldspar extensions on the granite outcrops where there have never been any industrial construction.

One of the big rules of skepticism is: If you can't rule normal out, you can't rule the fantastic in.

I am open to Bigfoot's existence, and would love to see the day when he's verified...but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Giordano]

I view myself as a skeptic and I did not ever seriously consider that Bigfoot exists and is an alien-genetically engineered human. But even more broadly, I have absolutely no problem with uncertainty as to facts. I don't really know what dark matter is- I would like to find out, but the uncertainly neither keeps me up at night nor requires me to invent something, anything, just to explain it. This even applies to hominids: I don't know actually how all my ancestors looked 100,000 years ago, but I don't feel the need to invent something out of whole cloth just to spare myself the uncertainty.

As to if a true skeptic should ever have a pre-existing opinion? Of course, people have pre-existing opinions about virtually everything. Being a skeptic is the willingness to put aside the pre-existing opinion as much as possible and to evaluate the evidence for the novel claim in regard to itself and the known facts.

I did not expect that the huge majority of the universe is composed of "dark matter" (i.e. something with gravity but not otherwise detected so far). But when I heard good evidence for such, I was very happy to change my pre-existing view of the universe. I did not expect that some of our ancestors included Neanderthals, but I was perfectly happy to change my view as soon as the solid evidence for this was presented to me.

Skeptics recognize and evaluate the strength of their pre-existing views compared to the strength of new evidence and try to reach a fair conclusion that is either the old one, or a newer modified one. This is not the same as having no prior view at all. Must every new fact be viewed as if no prior information existed that might have cause the observer to reach a pre-existing view? Skeptics are those who are willing to modify or abandon their pre-existing views in light of new information, not people who have none (the latter are typically less than 2 days old or who have undergone severe head injury).

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Coming to a PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION about something after examining evidence is NOT unskeptical.

Just because someone thinks their analysis of the evidence is correct doesn't mean they're being skeptical. Someone could provisionally conclude that based on the "evidence" they've observed, that god exists. In that case they'd be both wrong AND unskeptical.