• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Word "Skeptic" Must Go

lomiller said:
The underlying problem with skepticism is that it demands someone else do all the work and present all the evidence.
Click to expand...

I don't see that as a problem at all. If someone has a claim, then the burden of proof is on them. No-one is asking people to claim that ghosts exist, to continue with your example. It's not up to a sceptic to dig up evidence negating that claim before the claim has been made. Default position is that the phenomenon is unproven (not nonexistent, because you can't prove a negative in this context), and it will stay that way until a claim appears to be considered.

lomiller said:
Eg when a skeptic asks for evidence for the existence of ghosts they are not taking a neutral stance and giving the people a chance to support their claim. The skeptic is invariably starting from the (correct) position that ghosts do not exist, but doesn’t want to have to prove their own position is correct.
Click to expand...

Again, I think this is a misinterpretation of what scepticism is. Asking someone to support their claim is absolutely a neutral stance. If the evidence is there, and it is convincing, then the claim is supported. If not, then it isn't.
I also think you are making assumptions about the initial mindset of the majority of sceptics. I can only speak for myself here, but if someone claims something is true or real, then, if they can back that up, I'll accept it. I'm not automatically starting from the position that this claim is false. If I had an existing stance on this, then my request for evidence would be dishonest, because I'd know that nothing would change my mind. That isn't scepticism.

That said, there are very few genuinely new claims out there. Claims of the existence of ghosts have been around for pretty much all of human history. Any subsequent claim about them will be in the context of a sceptical look at all the previous claims, and the realisation that none of them have been in any way conclusive, nor even persuasive. In that respect, then, there is a pre-set standpoint, that any future claim of ghostly goings-on will have to overcome.
Finally, of course, there is the problem of proving that something does not exist. In the case of ghosts, and related claims such as telekinesis, we actually do have evidence (QFT) that their existence is not possible. For other claims (UFOs, for example), this is less straightforward.

lomiller said:
From a critical thinking perspective what we should be doing is weighing the evidence for BOTH sides and using that to reach a conclusion as to how likely each possibility is. You can still get to valid conclusions (eg “ghosts likely do not exist”) but it takes work and positive arguments/evidence of your own and sounds like you are hedging while saying “you haven’t proved to my satisfaction that ghosts exist, therefor they are not real” is easy and sounds authoritative.
Click to expand...

This is the old 'hard atheism' thing again. The "correct" conclusion would be "you haven't proved ghosts exist, therefore I have no reason to think they do exist".
 
lomiller said:
That word “sufficient” is problematic because it’s entirely subjective.
Click to expand...

It's possible to define it in an objective way in certain cases, although I agree that it's often not so simple.

There's an idea in science called a p-value (sorry if I mangle this definition) but roughly speaking we accept that there is "sufficient" evidence for a proposition if you can have 95% or greater confidence, based on evidence, that the proposition is correct.

I admit that this standard is not possible to apply to many questions (for example, I don't think it helps answer questions like "was 9/11 an inside job?"). But it does help us to answer other questions like "does smoking cigarettes cause cancer?"

So in some subset of cases, it is possible to objectively define what amount of evidence is "sufficient" to justify belief in certain claims.
 
Puppycow said:
It's possible to define it in an objective way in certain cases, although I agree that it's often not so simple.

There's an idea in science called a p-value (sorry if I mangle this definition) but roughly speaking we accept that there is "sufficient" evidence for a proposition if you can have 95% or greater confidence, based on evidence, that the proposition is correct.

I admit that this standard is not possible to apply to many questions (for example, I don't think it helps answer questions like "was 9/11 an inside job?"). But it does help us to answer other questions like "does smoking cigarettes cause cancer?"

So in some subset of cases, it is possible to objectively define what amount of evidence is "sufficient" to justify belief in certain claims.
Click to expand...
Instead of "belief in" wouldn't "acceptance of" of "agreement with" be better terms? "Belief" doesn't require any level of proof whatsoever.
 
The Atheist said:
Also "Sceptic".

It's been well and truly hijacked and is now worthless.

"I'm skeptical of climate change" means the person is a denier.

"I'm skeptical of vaccines" is double-speak for "I'm ant-vax."

"I'm skeptical of Covid....." means the person is a conspiracist loon.

The term is done and needs to be dropped entirely. I never liked it, have never identified as one, and the word always has negative connotations that are at odds with the idea of critical thinking, which is a process.
Click to expand...

There's no skepticism here, this place has devolved into a cesspool of liberal railing against the things that bother them. Politics has ruined this forum.
 
rockysmith76 said:
There's no skepticism here, this place has devolved into a cesspool of liberal railing against the things that bother them. Politics has ruined this forum.
Click to expand...

That was first raised about 15 years ago, when Randi and his sidekick, Hal Bidlack, stated that 97% of what gets written in here was a load of old codswallop.

You're waaaay late to that party.

(You know it's not compulsory to go into the Politics section?)
 
Roger Ramjets said:
I disagree. Though the amount required to satisfy an individual person obviously varies, we can still say that it is 'sufficient' if it is enough to satisfy the needs of a reasonable person. This applies to many things that are subjective, and is generally implicit in the word 'sufficient'.
Click to expand...

If most people believe something does that mean it’s reasonable? If most people are not reasonable, who gets to decide which ones are used as a template for reasonableness?
Roger Ramjets said:
No, it doesn't. Real skeptics do their own research,
Click to expand...
Poor handling of expert opinion is a huge problem in it’s own right. Most fields in science and technology are now highly specialized. If you try to do your own research without specializing in that field, you will invariably miss out on much of the nuance and come to wrong conclusions. “Don’t just accept what the scientific establishment says, think for yourself!” is a cornerstone of woo.
Roger Ramjets said:
If you are convinced that ghosts don't exist then you are not a skeptic. A skeptic is skeptical of the existence of ghosts, but willing to consider new evidence.
Click to expand...
I’m fine with that. Like I said, skepticism is largely used a convenient excuse to believe things without evidence. In the real wold, nearly everyone challenges for “evidence ghosts exist” already believes they do not, but if they say “I’m skeptical that ghosts exist” instead of “ghost don’t exist” they feel they don’t need evidence for their position.

From a critical thinking perspective, what you need to do is weigh the evidence for and against and come up with a provisional conclusion based on the weight of the evidence. A “skeptic” “challenging claims” one side for evidence rarely does more that muddy the waters because they don’t bring any evidence of their own to the table.


Roger Ramjets said:
When a skeptic asks for evidence you should not take it as an imposition, but an opportunity to expand your knowledge and review your beliefs, as well as helping others to do so. Sadly, many here are unwilling to do so - which is their loss. All of us can learn from such debates, even if the questioner shows gross ignorance and lack of critical thought. And it can be a valuable experience even if they turn out to be intractable deniers or believers. They are just providing the seed for discussion, not the whole audience.
Click to expand...

In my experience, if someone says something like “I don’t understand this, please explain it to me” they may be willing to listen. If they say they are skeptical and demand proof, they have typically already made up their mind and no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient. I may still answer if I think others may benefit or listen, but the vast majority of skepticism amounts to someone having already made up their mind and just taking the lazy way out of providing evidence for their opinion.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I don't see that as a problem at all. If someone has a claim, then the burden of proof is on them.
Click to expand...
Not having positive evidence of their own to present is one of the defining features of crackpots. If it’s bad for a crackpot to hold an opinion without evidence, why is it any better for a skeptic?
Cosmic Yak said:
Asking someone to support their claim is absolutely a neutral stance.
Click to expand...

In the real world nearly everyone engaged enough to demand support for a claim already has an opinion. People approaching a question from a neutral position ask for explanations instead.

Cosmic Yak said:
Finally, of course, there is the problem of proving that something does not exist.
Click to expand...
Our best tool for understanding the world around us doesn’t prove or disprove anything to begin with so what does it matter if we can’t prove something doesn’t exist?

Science is all about the weight of the evidence. Looking for something in a rigorous way and not finding it IS evidence that thing doesn’t exist. Evidence can and does pile up until we provisionally accept that thing or phenomenon doesn’t exist. You will never prove it doesn’t exist because science never proves anything it just provides the best answer based on the evidence available.

Cosmic Yak said:
This is the old 'hard atheism' thing again. The "correct" conclusion would be "you haven't proved ghosts exist, therefore I have no reason to think they do exist".
Click to expand...

This sounds a lot like an opinion held in the absence of evidence.

In the context of a scientific discussion you would still need at least some counter argument. This can be something as simple as appealing to Occam’s razor and saying that it doesn’t improve the model results so I’m not including it. Even with a simple argument like this you are now presenting a reason of your own for not considering it, but in the process you are making a potentially refutable positive claim of your own that could be tested.
 
Puppycow said:
It's possible to define it in an objective way in certain cases, although I agree that it's often not so simple.

There's an idea in science called a p-value (sorry if I mangle this definition) but roughly speaking we accept that there is "sufficient" evidence for a proposition if you can have 95% or greater confidence, based on evidence, that the proposition is correct.

I admit that this standard is not possible to apply to many questions (for example, I don't think it helps answer questions like "was 9/11 an inside job?"). But it does help us to answer other questions like "does smoking cigarettes cause cancer?"

So in some subset of cases, it is possible to objectively define what amount of evidence is "sufficient" to justify belief in certain claims.
Click to expand...

Think of it in the context of a scientific theory. What we do in practice is compare multiple theories to find which one gives the best results. Preference is given to those that are the simplest, most complete (explain the most things), most consistent and most accurate.

IOW, the idea that we are trying to decide if a theory is true or not is usually wrong. Instead, we are trying to figure out what the best theory is and identify the range of conditions where it can give us useful or explanatory results.
 
This video really made me think about the difference between skepticism and cynicism (or denialism)

You have to watch to the very end to get the point.

 
The Atheist said:
That was first raised about 15 years ago, when Randi and his sidekick, Hal Bidlack, stated that 97% of what gets written in here was a load of old codswallop.
Click to expand...

:bid:




(I have never had a chance to use this emoticon thingie where it is even remotely relevant - carry on)
 
Lplus said:
Instead of "belief in" wouldn't "acceptance of" of "agreement with" be better terms? "Belief" doesn't require any level of proof whatsoever.
Click to expand...


I think you're talking about "Faith" rather than "belief". "Faith" means belief without evidence. I'm using belief in just the normal colloquial sense of the word, essentially as a synonym for "acceptance" or "recognition". I try to "believe" things only on sufficient evidence and also to remain open to revising or changing my beliefs based on new compelling evidence if some becomes available.
 
Puppycow said:
I think you're talking about "Faith" rather than "belief". "Faith" means belief without evidence. I'm using belief in just the normal colloquial sense of the word, essentially as a synonym for "acceptance" or "recognition". I try to "believe" things only on sufficient evidence and also to remain open to revising or changing my beliefs based on new compelling evidence if some becomes available.
Click to expand...

Its a political blight here, nothing else, there is no true skepticism here.
 
steenkh said:
Yes, it is obvious that you mix up politics and skepticism. What would you expect of "true skepticism"? Is hydroxychloroquine somehow involved?
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of your skepticism of the parasitic political nature of this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom