Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scepticism
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 91 of 271 (691559)
02-23-2013 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by AZPaul3
02-22-2013 11:16 PM


Re: On Proof
Few minutes in the darkroom would do it.
Problem is, haven't used a darkroom in over 10 years--its all Photoshop now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by AZPaul3, posted 02-22-2013 11:16 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 92 of 271 (691589)
02-23-2013 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by RAZD
02-22-2013 10:02 PM


Re: Still going in circles, that is consistent ...
Unless you have changed your position such that you now consider ethereal elephants to be a realistic possibility I maintain that there is no real difference between us in terms of the level of credence given to this particular proposition.
Unless you have changed your position such that you now treat your favoured ideas as skeptically as you treat ethereal elephants it is indisputable that your approach is inconsistent.
RAZ writes:
Seems rather irrational to me to make up stuff so you can then say you don't believe it.
Argument through example. We could have considered the ideas favoured by established religions. We could have considered your favoured idea as our example. But it is less emotive to consider a more neutral proposition. Anyway the ethereal elephant proposition seems to have served it's purpose by establishing a shared baseline from which the inconsistency in your approach can then be highlighted.
RAZ writes:
So there you are in your garden saying "There are no ethereal elephants inaudible trumpeting in my garden"
I can assure you that I have never physically uttered those words in my garden or indeed anywhere else.
But if I have put forward that specific scenario here once or twice it is only because I find the notion of ethereal elephants subjectively appealing. I would quite like it if such things did exist (minus the brain damage thing). I could have talked about immaterial iguanas, spectral squirrels, incorporeal antelopes, your favoured idea, the ideas favoured by various established religions or indeed any other such unknowable entities. In each case the same approach would be taken to reach the same conclusion.
Because, unlike some people, I don't change my skeptical approach because a particular unknowable idea has more subjective appeal.
RAZ writes:
Let's try a different word\meaning for "agnostic" -- try "unconvinced" and see if that clarifies what a skeptical position would properly be.
When I use the term agnostic I use it to describe a state of being unable to decide whether a possibility which has grounds as realistic is actually true or not. So - For example - I am agnostic as to whether I have ever eaten horse when I thought I was eating beef. Given recent events it's a perfectly well founded possibility. But I just don't have enough information to know whether I actually have eaten horse in beef products or not. I genuinely don't know.
Now if I was genuinely agnostic about a cause of brain damage to my children, if I honestly didn't know whether they were being brain damaged or not, I would take preventative action just in case. The reason I haven't taken any action with regard to brain-damaging-ethereal-elephants is because I am not agnostic towards this proposition beyond the trivial agnosticism of lacking philosophical certainty. I don't believe that brain damage from ethereal elephants is a realistic possibility and I would describe this stance as atheistic.
I think your over-exuberant use of the term "agnostic", applying it both to things you really do believe in and things you really don't (e.g. ethereal elephants), is the result of you trying to mask the inconsistency of your approach to favoured and non-favoured ideas.
RAZ writes:
So you should be ending up at "C" rather than the "D" you always seem to pick?
If I said I was ignostic about brain-damage-inducing-ethereal-elephants I would be lying. Because I have considered the possibility and decided that there is no realistic danger of brain damage occurring.
RAZ writes:
And yet your position is not founded on any objective empirical evidence, so by the precepts you have laid out here you should be skeptical\atheistic about your position.
I haven't laid out any precepts and I have yet to even mention objective empirical evidence in this thread.
RAZ writes:
Oh but wait, you give your beliefs a free ride here because you aren't skeptical of your position.
Actually I have said that a skeptical approach should itself be subject to skeptical analysis. Message 51
RAZ writes:
btw -- do you think Eric ever "lost faith" in his belief?
Who knows what went through Eric's head (before his spine did). But Eric didn't consider himself a man of faith. He thought his conclusions to be subjectively evidenced knowledge garnered from a valid epistemology. Tragically this didn't work out too well for poor Eric.
Straggler writes:
If, as you seem to be suggesting, all methods of knowledge acquisition are essentially axiomatic with no one epistemology superior to any other then all we can ever do is say something like the following Bob, based on your epistemological premise you have drawn a conclusion and I, based on a different epistemological premise, have drawn an opposing conclusion. Neither is right. Neither is wrong. All conclusions are simply a matter of subjectively preferred starting premise.
RAZD writes:
What is "right" and what is "wrong" ... ?
You seem to have no problem telling those who age the Earth in thousands rather than billions of years that they are incontrovertibly wrong elsewhere.
Why so coy now?
RAZ writes:
Now we probably agree (I would hope so anyway) that this view is "wrong" ... but how do we -- individually and as a society -- make that determination?
The fact that society has agreed something is irrelevant. Eric could have been a deeply charismatic man who managed to persuade the entire world that he was as special as he knew himself to be. But reality's assessment of Eric's epistemology and the validity of his conclusions remains all the same.
RAZ writes:
Which still doesn't really answer the question of how we tell which worldview is better.
Question: Why do scientists concern themselves with evidence, why don't they use revelation?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2013 10:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2013 8:58 PM Straggler has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 93 of 271 (691591)
02-23-2013 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by ringo
02-22-2013 12:18 PM


Re: Too far already? Yep
Nothing I say here depends on me being real. The "truth" of what I say (if any) doesn't depend on my existence.
For sure.
The Truth was before Abraham, before Jesus, and before you or I.
Truth is the grace of Reality as it unfolds the next frame it leaves as if a son, Truth in its wake.
John1:1
In the beginning was the Word, (i.e.; Truth: [John 14:6]), and the Word, (Truth, itself), was (synonymous) with God, (i.e.; Reality), and the Word, (Truth: [John 14:6]), was (indistinguishable from Reality), God, (the almighty for all men).
2 "He," (Truth, the symbolic Word to come: [Jud 1:3]) was with God, (i.e.; the ever unfolding Reality), in the beginning, (that is, the initial unfolding of material Reality in what was the actiual physical Creation).
Jn 1:3 ALL (real) THINGS, (phenomenally, i.e.; mentally), came into existence, (for man), through him, (i.e.; this concept of Truth), and apart from him, (this ideal of Truth), not even ONE (real) thing came into (actual) existence (for men).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 02-22-2013 12:18 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 02-23-2013 11:25 AM kofh2u has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 94 of 271 (691593)
02-23-2013 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD
02-22-2013 9:08 PM


Re: Gosh Straggler
RAZ writes:
I'll give you a hint: I agreed with DBlevins.
And DBlevins apparently agrees with me. So that makes us one big happy agreeable family.
How jolly!!
RAZ writes:
Go back and read the posts between myself and DBlevins and you should find out who was talking about "proof."
You were.
And if - as seems to be the case - You are taking an axiomatic approach to knowledge acquisition "proof" would be a potential consequence of that.
Are you advocating an axiomatic approach to knowledge?
RAZ writes:
When you find it you can either admit that you made an error or not -- I'll still know.
I love it when you turn on the charm RAZ.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2013 9:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2013 5:34 PM Straggler has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 95 of 271 (691595)
02-23-2013 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by DBlevins
02-22-2013 1:31 PM


Re: skeptism can just be nilihism...
1) There is nothing wrong with being skeptical of evolution or any other theory. Scientists codify 'skepticism' by limiting well supported ideas to the position of 'Theory.' While evolution is a Theory that is well-supported by evidence, has been tested a multitude of times, and makes correct predictions, there is still the chance, however slight, that someone could come about and turn it on it's head. Same thing with our "Theory" of Gravity. Scientists know our knowledge is not and will never be complete.
2) It's always good, imho, to have at least a little bit of skepticism about the extent of peoples knowledge and try to investigate it yourself by looking for reputable sources.
The point is that you may think that people are avoiding an admission of whether the Big Bang was "In the beginning" but it may be the case that they just don't know what "In the beginning" means in the context of the Big Bang.
3) My understanding of how things work could be flawed, and thus I should never assume that my view of how the universe works is complete or proven.
3) I conclude you make others suffer from your Cognitive Dissonance in that you consciously refuse to believe what you know, even when the Scientific Method demonstrates that facts exist which everyone can observe if they set up the same experiments.
2) You also seem to have poor reading comprehension when you do not understand that the "beginning of the heavens and the earth means the beginning of the Universe, i.e., the meaning of The Big Bang.
1) Theories inthe discipline of Science are akin to Theorem in the discipline of Geometry.
They support Truth as best humans can discern that entity.
If one denies that Truth exists, or that it is unknowable to men for sure, then one admits to living in the insanity of a Fantasy World he consequentally has been constructing.
Here what you say would seem to support my guess that you make the people around you suffer because of your illness, Cognitive Dissonance. i.e.; you don't believe anything at all, not for sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by DBlevins, posted 02-22-2013 1:31 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 96 of 271 (691599)
02-23-2013 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by DBlevins
02-22-2013 2:36 PM


Re: Too far already? Yep
We employ something like the scientific method when we determine that putting our hands in the fire will burn our hands and we draw the conclusion that putting our hands in the fire is dangerous. While this conclusion is related to the scientific method of determining why it is dangerous, it isn't an explanation. For an explanation of why things burn, we draw upon our knowledge of physics and chemistry. Our understanding of these processes is not truly complete. Our assumptions may be flawed. We don't have a complete understanding of physics and chemistry, and thus we can not say with 100% certainty that every time we put our hand in the fire it will burn. We can be reasonably assured that this will happen and wouldn't recommend testing it out by placing our hand in the fire. We can continue testing our theory and refining it and draw conclusions from it but there may come a time when something happens that we don't expect and the physical and chemical process
of fire doesn't act the way we think it should. It may be a complete shock and wonder but that is the process of science.
By the way, just because something doesn't act the way we think it should doesn't mean we just drop our theory of how we thought it should work. We remain skeptical of our assumptions and look for flaws in the new observations. If the new observations hold up to further testing then we update or change our theory. But even so, it can never be complete. Our perception and understanding of the world is limited and thus my skepticism.
The short of it is: We can have an observation that fire will burn and a theory on how or why and draw valid conclusions from it, but we should remain skeptical and be prepared to change our understanding when appropriate.
I rest my case in concluding that you are living in a fantasy world and refuse to acept Reality based upon concrete experimentally demonstrated evidence.
The very purpose of the Scientific Method is the establish the facts-of-life which are the planks by which we build a model inside our head of the real world that exists external to our thinking.
If you do not accept this method for establishing not only what you, yourself, can fix in your mind as factually true about the external "thingee" within which you are both trapped and dependent upon, you essentially deny your own Sensory Perceptions as reliable, and you understand everything as a dream or fantasy that may not be real, but just figments of your mind.
That is the definition of madness, of course, living outside of Reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by DBlevins, posted 02-22-2013 2:36 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 97 of 271 (691608)
02-23-2013 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Coyote
02-22-2013 9:31 PM


Re: On Proof
proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make.
All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Is Science different in this admission that it will change its views if evidence is brought to its attention that corrects it?
Is Mathematics not similar, as Fermat's Last Theorem tells us?
Until evidence was brought to support the Theorem, the matter remained open.
But this is not an excuse for dismissing every theory in Science on the mere argument that it COULD or MIGHT be changed.
If one does as Rene Descartes, and rejects everything, he must also do as did Rene, in admitting that he can think about the evidence of his senses and piece together ideas about the external world that are for the most part correct. He can even conclude that when some element of that Reality is found untrue in the model he has been constructing, mentally, it changes only a small part of the whole general perception of Reality he has held to.
It improves his understanding, but does not eliminate it, nor start over except in cases of madness to begin with.
When Dalton was corrected about solid little Atoms when the Bohr Atom was discovered, Atomism did not disappear, but new insights where added.
When the Law of Conservation of Matter was revised, adding that it necessarily required the same conservation of Energy, we added to our understanding.
Heliocentrism replaced Geocentricism, but neither had said planets did not orbit.
What we really have observed over time is baseless ideas disappeared as the Scientific Method gradually established the facts of Reality.
What we really ought emphasize is the rarity in Science, when the use of facts available lead to false assumptions as discovered only when Science, itself, discovered more facts.
It is rather more akin to saying saying that th discipline of science, within itself, is Self Correcting, a rather unusual trait, one very rare to man whose ego opposes Truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2013 9:31 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Eli, posted 02-23-2013 10:58 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3492 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 98 of 271 (691619)
02-23-2013 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by kofh2u
02-23-2013 10:32 AM


Re: On Proof
It is man who does the correcting. Studies don't write themselves.
You really need to stop personifying everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by kofh2u, posted 02-23-2013 10:32 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 99 of 271 (691622)
02-23-2013 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by kofh2u
02-23-2013 9:30 AM


Re: Too far already? Yep
kofh2u writes:
The Truth was before Abraham, before Jesus, and before you or I.
You say The Truth and I say the "truth". In case it isn't already clear, I'm mocking the concept of Ultimate Truth. If there is such a thing as The Truth, it's pretty near certain that you don't know what it is.
Skepticism is the habit of always asking, "Is that true?" not thinking you alreay have all of the answers.
Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by kofh2u, posted 02-23-2013 9:30 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by kofh2u, posted 02-24-2013 1:25 PM ringo has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 100 of 271 (691657)
02-23-2013 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Straggler
02-23-2013 9:38 AM


Re: Gosh Straggler -- seems you still don't get it right yet.
You really must love being wrong.
You were.
No, Truzzi was. See my Message 32 - which you should have read, as it was addressed to you:
... I would assume that Truzzi means that the claim is not proved rather than disproved ... it could be true and it could be false.
So now -- using this definition -- do you agree with Truzzi's characterization of "true" skepticism (see Message 17):
quote:
  1. Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
  2. No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
  3. Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
  4. Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
  5. Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
  6. Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found

Then DBlevins in Message 61 says:
'Proven' is a pretty loaded word. Our established 'knowledge' of the universe is never proven, something I am sure you've agreed with outside of your philosophical debates. We may be able to draw inferences based on what we think we know, but we can never be absolutely certain that we are absolutely correct.
And then my Message 64:
'Proven' is a pretty loaded word. ...
Yeah, I agree. I take his "but recognising its incompleteness" to refer to the necessary tentativity of scientific conclusions.
One could say "what is known" but that would have similar problems and it would get back to the previous discussion on another thread of the differences between "KNOW" and "know" (using Jar's distinctions with capitalizations)
Or we could use validated
3. Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is validated, but recognising its incompleteness.
Note that this also implies a touch of open-mindedness is necessary.
Please note where it says "his" - referring to Truzzi's argument - rather than "my" ... in case you have any malingering doubt about having been wrong - again - and jumping - once again - to false conclusions.
I love it when you turn on the charm RAZ.....
Thanks. You earn it.
Now try again to follow the arguments properly, as they are written, with only what is written, instead of making stuff up in your head.
If you had, you should have recognized the reference ... because you answered the post in Message 30:
RAZD writes:
Do you agree with Truzzi's characterization of "true" skepticism.
Depends. For example:
RAZD writes:
No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
,
Depends what one means by "agnostic position". If, for example, you told me that a herd of undetectable ethereal elephants were congregating in my garden as I type I don't think that an agnostic position beyond trivial lack of philosophical certainty would be necessary.
Is lack of philosophical certainty "agnostic"...?
To all practical intents and purposes I am atheistic rather than agnostic about said herd of undetectable ethereal elephants congregating in my garden. But if lack of certainty qualifies as "agniostic" then I guess I am "agnostic".
AND because I referred back to the Truzzi article in my Message 32 reply, so if you had been paying attention you should have known.
So when you say in Message 81:
This is the distinction RAZ is missing when he talks about "proof"..
YOU are the one spreading misinformation - once again.
So you should stop posting lies about me, and stop making posts attacking me, and perhaps actually concentrate on the argument instead.
New readers please note that this is not the first time Straggler has been caught lying about me, and making personal attacks, and that other people have complained about this tendency of his.
So if anything, one should be extremely skeptical of anything Straggler says about anyone.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Straggler, posted 02-23-2013 9:38 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 02-23-2013 6:01 PM RAZD has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 101 of 271 (691659)
02-23-2013 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
02-23-2013 5:34 PM


Re: Gosh Straggler -- seems you still don't get it right yet.
RAZD writes:
No, Truzzi was.
Truzzi isn't here posting messages. You are.
If you are posting messages advocating positions that you are not actually taking then the mind boggles as to how you expect anyone to reasonably respond to anything you say.
The next time you post anything that might constitute an on topic position could you make clear which bits of that position you actually subscribe to and which bits you are just posting for fun and japes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2013 5:34 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2013 10:06 AM Straggler has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 102 of 271 (691694)
02-24-2013 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Straggler
02-23-2013 6:01 PM


Re: Gosh Straggler -- seems you still don't get it right yet.
Trying to twist it eh?
The next time you post anything that might constitute an on topic position could you make clear which bits of that position you actually subscribe to and which bits you are just posting for fun and japes?
Oddly it was you that took this off-topic by posting fallacious information about me rather than about the topic.
You want to keep on topic then don't post gratuitous unnecessary nonsense about me -- you can keep your gratuitous unnecessary nonsense posting to your hypothetical word games.
Truzzi isn't here posting messages. You are.
Correct, and what I posted was a quote from wikipedia that had a quote from Truzzi. The purpose was to ask you if you agreed with that article's assessment of skepticism ... rather mundanely on topic imho.
Only a fatuous fool would claim that I was responsible for each and every word in a quote being a pedantically correct statement.
If you are posting messages advocating positions that you are not actually taking then the mind boggles as to how you expect anyone to reasonably respond to anything you say.
Only a gibbering idiot would think that I was advocating that specific and particular wording of a statement in a quoted article that I have already acknowledged needed some correction.
Oh wait ... that's you.
Now let's try again -- see if you can follow the English in the article instead of the delusional voices in your head -- and see if you can cypher out what I am actually advocating (it is a simple concept -- I'll highlight it this time):
Message 17 (my first on this thread):
... and thus in the end you balance open-mindedness with skepticism in varying degrees according to your personal worldview.
(pink color added for emphasis below)
Skepticism - Wikipedia
quote:
Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2]
Philosophical skepticism is an overall approach that requires all information to be well supported by evidence.[3] Classical philosophical skepticism derives from the 'Skeptikoi', a school who "asserted nothing".[4] Adherents of Pyrrhonism, for instance, suspend judgment in investigations.[5] Skeptics may even doubt the reliability of their own senses.[6] Religious skepticism, on the other hand is "doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)".[7] Most[who?] scientists are empirical skeptics,[citation needed] who admit the possibility of knowledge based on evidence, but hold that new evidence may always overturn these findings.
A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions beliefs on the basis of scientific understanding. Most scientists, being scientific skeptics, test the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation using some form of the scientific method.[10] As a result, a number of claims are considered "pseudoscience" if they are found to improperly apply or ignore the fundamental aspects of the scientific method. Scientific skepticism may discard beliefs pertaining to things outside perceivable observation and thus outside the realm of systematic, empirical falsifiability/testability.
Similarly to science where it can be used misleadingly and then becomes pseudoscience, scientific skepticism can also be acted many ways impoliticly if it just looks like skepticism but in fact it is pseudoskepticism.
Now I don't believe anyone wants to return to the issue of pseudoskepticism ... unless you want to flog dead horsemeat () ...
... but one does need to guard against false skepticism (or confirmation biased skepticism).
A quick review for the new readers:
Pseudoskepticism - Wikipedia
quote:
Truzzi characterized "true" skepticism as:[5]
  1. Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
  2. No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
  3. Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
  4. Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
  5. Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
  6. Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found
While Truzzi's characterisation was aimed at the holders of majority views who he considered were excessively impatient of minority opinions, the term has been used to describe advocates of minority intellectual positions who engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a preexisting belief. Thus according to Richard Cameron Wilson, some advocates of AIDS denial are indulging in "bogus scepticism" when they argue in this way.[13] Wilson argues that the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".[14]
Now I would classify Truzzi's characterization as open-minded skepticism, and I would classify false skepticism as being more skeptical of an opponents position than you are of your own.
Thus the quoted article supports my position of open-minded skepticism, one you should be very familiar with from previous discussions.
Then, continuing in Message 32 after your ... response:
What exactly do you mean by "agnostic"...?
Judging from the context of the article ...
quote:
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." ...
Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5]

... I would assume that Truzzi means that the claim is not proved rather than disproved ... it could be true and it could be false.
So now -- using this definition -- do you agree with Truzzi's characterization of "true" skepticism (see Message 17):
quote:
  1. Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
  2. No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
  3. Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
  4. Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
  5. Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
  6. Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found

So now, if we:
  1. use Truzzi's definition of "agnostic" taken from the context of the quoted articles (an elementary part of basic reading comprehension skills), and
  2. alter (3) as I have previously proposed in Message 64:
    Or we could use validated
    3. Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is validated, but recognising its incompleteness.
    Note that this also implies a touch of open-mindedness is necessary.
We can carry this further to replace "proof" with more pedantically appropriate words in other points, and also replace "agnostic" (a word which seems to give you gas) with "unconvinced" ...
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with this characterization of skepticism?
  1. Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
  2. No burden of substantiation to take an unconvinced position
  3. Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is validated, but recognizing its incompleteness
  4. Even-handedness in requirement for validations, whatever their implication
  5. Accepting that a failure of a validation in itself proves nothing
  6. Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found
It's a simple question.
Note you only need to respond to this last question to be on topic.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ..
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 02-23-2013 6:01 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 02-24-2013 12:35 PM RAZD has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 103 of 271 (691696)
02-24-2013 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by RAZD
02-24-2013 10:06 AM


Re: Gosh Straggler -- seems you still don't get it right yet.
If your own posts submitted by you to support your own position contain arguments whose wording you disagree with then you place yourself in the bizarre situation of misrepresenting yourself.
I strongly suggest you desist from this rather absurd undertaking.
Anyway - I know from past experience that when you start engaging in these relentless and hysterical "you said I said" claims of misrepresentation that it is because the main discussion isn't going how you would like it to.
RAZ writes:
I would assume that Truzzi means that the claim is not proved rather than disproved ... it could be true and it could be false.
RAZ writes:
Do you AGREE with this characterization of skepticism? It's a simple question.
I am reluctant to respond to anything you haven't written in your own words because it appears to be only a matter of time before you start declaring "I didn't say that, you are misrepresenting me...."
If you want to reply to Message 92 in your own words rather than Truzzi's words then I will be delighted to continue an on topic discussion about the nature of skepticism and associated methods of knowledge acquisition. In that post I have taken the time to explain what I mean by "agnostic" alongside highlighting what I think are other likely points of merely semantic difference between us.
I will only say one thing further in this post - If the form of skepticism and associated method of knowledge acquisition you are advocating here doesn't even enable one to make decisions regarding things like whether or not brain damage from the inaudible trumpeting or ethereal elephants is a realistic possibility - Then I would suggest that this form of skepticism and the epistemology associated with it is useless in a very practical sense.
Which is fine. Being practically unusable doesn't necessarily invalidate it as an academic argument. But if this is the case it does mean we need an alternative strategy to come to useful conclusions when confronted by propositions which if ignored have potentially dire consequences.
I don't want my children to be brain damaged. So in a very practical sense I do need to be able to decide if such a proposition is realistic and worthy of credence or not. If you tell me that your form of skepticism necessitates me just ignoring possible brain damage to my children then obviously it isn't something I can ever adopt in practise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2013 10:06 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2013 2:09 PM Straggler has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 104 of 271 (691700)
02-24-2013 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coyote
02-16-2013 8:19 PM


Re: Evidence
People doubted Gen 1:1 was either supported by fact or ever woukd be, until Hubbke gathered the eviidence for a Big Bang beginning.
I am really skeptical that Iron Age sheep herders had the big bang in mind when those particular tracts were written down.
I doubt that you are skeptical.
You are confirmed in the decision you have already made in stone against Genesis and no argument or evidence to the contrary will sway your position.
This is NOT skeptism.
skeptical
/ˈskeptikəl/
Adjective
Not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 02-16-2013 8:19 PM Coyote has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 105 of 271 (691701)
02-24-2013 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by ringo
02-23-2013 11:25 AM


Re: Too far already? Yep
You say The Truth and I say the "truth".
In case it isn't already clear, I'm mocking the concept of Ultimate Truth. If there is such a thing as The Truth, it's pretty near certain that you don't know what it is.
Yes, I am saying Truth, which infers the Ideal.
I also realize that you are trying to mock Truth by ignoring its definition.
Truth is that which corresponds, directly and one-to-one with what actually Exists.
Truth is congruent with Reality, and is born in the wake of the every unfolding Reality which is on-going.
It is similar to History, but it is congruent with the factual reality.
The truth to which you refer is inside men's mind, and competes with the perceptions and lies and illusions therein.
But nevertheless, it is the measure of their Intelligence as can be seen by the number of correct answers on IQ tests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 02-23-2013 11:25 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ringo, posted 02-25-2013 11:55 AM kofh2u has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024