Back to archive index
Back to UNFACTS

First the question....

 

Am I wrong to think of Skepticism...

Posted By: Lily (198.81.26.104)
Date: 12/21/02 at 11:30 p.m.

as something negative, that is, it is only always "against" something, but never explicitly "for" something? Or is maybe anything perceived as "for" something, viewed as some kind of unwanted proscription, which skeptics can never ever adhere to. Because, really, Skepticism is certainly not limited to adversarial action towards religion or the paranormal and so forth, is it?

So, is accurate for me or not to characterize as skeptics as ever alert for something to oppose, but never as active for something to support? If I am wrong, then can anyone give an example of what a skeptic has supported "actively"?

Funny, I don't remember seeing anything proactively positively "skepticly" supported here.

Lily

 

Then Fred's response....

 

Re: Am I wrong to think of Skepticism...

Posted By: Fred Askew <faskew@yahoo.com> (209.99.40.127)
Date: 12/22/02 at 11:47 a.m.

In Response To: Am I wrong to think of Skepticism... (Lily)

As we often repeat here, the popular or TV version of skeptic is indeed a cynic, someone who merely disagrees with the hero for no other reason than to be a trouble maker. The actual meaning of skeptic is simply someone who studies a question before making a decision. As a part of this system, it is generally accepted that claims which violate known facts will required more evidence than normal before being accepted.

For example, I might say that I once met John Lennon. That isn’t true but it easily could be true and no one would bother to question me about it. If I up the ante and say that I was John Lennon’s best friend and that he promised to give me the rights to all his music just before he was killed, that would (and should) require a considerable amount of evidence before it was accepted as true.

People can be skeptical shoppers or anything else, but the original FACTS list began as a subset of the Skeptic Magazine, which is oriented toward science and history, so in theory this list should be specializing in scientific and pseudoscientific claims instead of politics and philosophy.

Although it may seem that all we do is attack pseudoscientific claims, remember that we are most often supporting something in science as part of the attack. For example, when we trounce the Fox TV show that claimed the moon landings were faked, we are actually being positive and supporting NASA against a negative attack.

And if you look closely at paranormal claims in books and on TV you will see that almost all of them are negative. That is, they begin by saying that science is completely wrong, that all alternate explanations except the paranormal are intentional lies produced by “the government” or scientists who are afraid of the truth, etc.

So this is the pattern here. Someone presents a claim. Someone responds with why the claim is wrong, referring to scientists or others sources that have studied the claim. The claimant disputes the evidence, usually valuing personal experience over research. The debate goes back and forth until it either turns nasty (name calling) or something new comes along that replaces it.
> Funny, I don't remember seeing anything proactively positively "skepticly" supported here.
Watch for support of the scientific method, reason, logic, evidence, etc. Some specific subjects that were discussed in the past few months include support of the NASA’s presentation of the moon landings and space programs in general and support of the proper way to test for psychic abilities.

Something like nine out of ten posts are off-topic, so you may go for days at a time reading jokes, personal life stories, political tirades, arcane philosophical disputes, and so forth. 8-(

Fred Askew

 

Then would you agree...

Posted By: Lily (198.81.26.104)
Date: 12/22/02 at 12:02 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Am I wrong to think of Skepticism... (Fred Askew)

that this forum is not really a "skeptic" forum?

And if you look closely at paranormal claims in books and on TV you will see that almost all of them are negative. That is, they begin by saying that science is completely wrong, that all alternate explanations except the paranormal are intentional lies produced by the government or scientists who are afraid of the truth, etc.

I haven't noticed this myself. Most of the things I hear or read that is characterized as "paranormal" simply states it's case and doesn't say anything about science being wrong or otherwise. Not to say it doesn't happen, just haven't seen it myself.

Lily

 

Re: Then would you agree...

Posted By: Fred Askew <faskew@yahoo.com> (209.99.35.112)
Date: 12/22/02 at 2:48 p.m.

In Response To: Then would you agree... (Lily)

>Then would you agree that this forum is not really a "skeptic" forum?


---It used to be more of one, although it was never perfect, and it still has flashes of the old days now and then, but, yes, the topics and discussions are much more social than skeptical: movie reviews, game reviews, politics, non-science items of interest in the news, personal information, etc. Occasionally we talk about trying to limit the list's subjects, but nothing comes of it. This is why I rarely post anything myself any more and I only read a very small percentage of the posts.

> Most of the things I hear or read that is characterized as "paranormal" simply states it's case and doesn't say anything about science being wrong or otherwise. Not to say it doesn't happen, just haven't seen it myself.

---That comes with Part 3 of typical debates on this list.
Part 1 – Such and such happened.
Part 2 – No it didn’t. Science has studied that subject already and found that it’s not true.
Part 3 – I have had the experience/know someone who has had the experience. Experience trumps research, therefore science is wrong.

---Typically in paranormal books and such you usually see an “expert” in a field proclaiming that he/she has discovered ancient wisdom/new science that will cause all the textbooks to rewritten. Why hasn’t modern science made the discovery? Because scientists are pawns of the government/are afraid of new ideas.

---Here’s are some of the essential problems for the paranormal that force them to attack science.
(1) ALL subjects have been studied at one time or another by reputable scientists, some many times over. There was a great amount of mainstream paranormal research in the 19th century in particular when the odds that paranormal claims might be true were better than they are now.
(2) ALL paranormal claims violate basic laws of physics and such that have been well proven over the years. A true claim would not only require evidence that it was true, but it would also have to account for how it could violate the known laws.

----Therefore, for paranormal claims to be true, science as we know it has to be wrong.

--- When science and the paranormal clash, and they always do, paranormal believers must explain why their claims are not accepted. The claimants will say that science is wrong in various ways and for various reasons, but sooner or later they will have to say it. Otherwise, their claim would be part of the mainstream and not just a fringe belief.

--For example, many health cures claim to be able to cure just about any disease, including AIDS. This is not true, of course, but if it were true there are dozens of poor nations in the world which are being overwhelmed by AIDS and they would be perfectly happy to use any cure that they could find. The reason such cures are not used is that they don’t work. The promoters of such cures say that they work, but pharmaceutical conspiracies keep the cures out of the hands of the ill.

---In other words, the sellers of magical health cures must explain why AIDS still exists. They do so by attacking, saying that scientists are willing to kill millions of people in return for big bucks from the pharmaceutical companies.

---Anyone who knew anything about scientists and the intense competition for grant money, awards, and university positions that goes on among them would know that if there really were an AIDS cure it would be impossible to keep it a secret. But that wouldn’t explain why the magical cure hasn’t saved the world yet. 8-)

-------Science only accepts evidence. Even claims that were very likely to be true, such as continental drift, were not accepted until enough evidence accumulated. Paranormal claims have no acceptable evidence, therefore their supporters usually say that the scientific method must be changed to allow claims with no evidence the same prestige as those with evidence. In other words, when science rejects a claim, paranormalists say it is science that is wrong, not them. What else could they say?

Fred Askew

All Messages In This Thread

 

 

 

 

 

Back to archive index
Back to UNFACTS

arthur@unfacts.org


Last change 11 Jan 2003 am