Who can you trust? How did you become a Skeptic?

[streetsmart1980]

Who can you trust?

Can you trust yourself, your perceptions and intuitions?
Can you trust people who are smarter than you?
Can you trust scientists? Authority figures? The news?
Your parents? Your friends? Your social support network?
Do you trust experience? Do you trust bravery?

I have trusted all of the above. They helped me expand my perspective. By following the course of our civilization I have achieved a much clearer and accurate understanding of reality than I ever would have come to on my own. I have agressively pursued the knowledge and power these sources provide. Thereby I have set myself apart from the masses.

Here are the things I currently trust:
#1. I trust the premise that "I don't know anything" and the world we live in is profoundly different than the way it appears to us.
#2. I trust the fact that science is the best method to understand the world around us. It is the most reliable and consistent provider of truth. It allows us to build tools that absolutely improve our quality of life. Only science has proven itself faithful to humanities advancement.

Here is a quote from Michael Shermer who is explaining what Skepticism and Science are:

"The default position in science is that: whatever it is you think you believe in, it is not true, unless you prove it otherwise"

In other words, humans are stupid and wrong. Their natural tendencies will lead them astray. Only science is a true guide in separating superstition from truth, and reality from fantasy.

I was wondering how you became a skeptic?
I became a skeptic, because all of my sources of trust eventually ended up failing me and letting me down. They failed to question themselves and practically demanded I fully commit myself to them. Once I exhausted their help I gave up on everything and became a skeptic. Science is now my only means of advancing.

What is your motivation for being a skeptic?
I kind of ended up here by accident. My initial goal in life was to become absolutely free from deception. I wanted to live the greatest life I could possibly live. I have come to the conclusion that skepticism is an absolute critical part for me to accomplish and maintain that goal. I also want to share that freedom with others.

[Hokulele]

<snip>

Here is a quote from Michael Shermer who is explaining what Skepticism and Science are:

"The default position in science is that: whatever it is you think you believe in, it is not true, unless you prove it otherwise"

<snip>


Eh, I am not thrilled with this quote. I think a better sentiment would be to ask yourself, "Consider what you believe to be true. What would it take to convince you that it is false?" If the answer is "Nothing", that is the idea you must examine with skepticism.

To answer your questions, I am not sure that I could consider any one thing a motivation for skepticism, or a reason to end up skeptical. Skeptcism is simply a tool in the toolbox, and the real lesson to learn is to be able to identify those things to which you can and should apply it.

For example, I certainly could be skeptical of everything my husband tells me, but that is not necessarily conducive to a healthy marriage. It is far better to know which things my husband tells me I should greet with a raised eyebrow.

[chillzero]

There's a difference between 'trust', and 'accept as always correct and valid'.

As Hokulele says, skepticism is a tool to help determine what you accept and what you question.

[Blackadder]

Fantasy is not a bad thing. millions of sceptic people enjoy many fantasies in arts, books, and (online) games.

As for why I became a sceptic, I am not aware of being one. Form childhood on I just followed the Reason. because when I asked questions reason could answer them. (Of course those answers came to me through parents, teachers and books)

[Ersby]

I live by the dictum "You can never be sure when you're right, you can only be sure when you're wrong", which I got from Richard Feynman.

And as for these quotes...

Thereby I have set myself apart from the masses.

[...]

In other words, humans are stupid and wrong.

Those are dangerous ways of thinking.

[TheDeeMan]

There's a difference between 'trust', and 'accept as always correct and valid'.

As Hokulele says, skepticism is a tool to help determine what you accept and what you question.

I couldn't agree more.

Dee

[arthwollipot]

I have no motivation for being a skeptic. It's just how I am. I came to it gradually, over a lot of years.

[CFLarsen]

Shermer is correct.

In science, we don't start with our preconceived notions and then try to prove them false. In science, we start with nothing and work our way from there.

If we start with our preconceived notions, we basically use the trial-and-error method, but without knowing exactly what it is we are doing. That's why medicine was so haphazard and dangerous (often lethal) right up until we learned about correct models of molecules, which didn't happen until we had a pretty good understanding of what atoms are.

[sg1985]

I became a skeptic when I found out that Santa wasn't real.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

In science, we don't start with our preconceived notions and then try to prove them false.

Yes, we do.

In science, we start with nothing and work our way from there.

<snip>

No, we don't.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I became a skeptic after talking to an insurance professional! ( :duck: and :D for those who are following along. )

[RoboTimbo]

I became a skeptic after listening to a non-insurance professional. I now know how the physicists feel talking to the crackpots :).

[jeremyp]

Shermer is correct.

In science, we don't start with our preconceived notions and then try to prove them false. In science, we start with nothing and work our way from there.

If we start with our preconceived notions, we basically use the trial-and-error method, but without knowing exactly what it is we are doing. That's why medicine was so haphazard and dangerous (often lethal) right up until we learned about correct models of molecules, which didn't happen until we had a pretty good understanding of what atoms are.
Scientists often have preconceived notions. It's what they do with them when they are presented with evidence that contradicts them that matters.

Kepler started with two preconceived notions that I can think of off the top of my head. Namely that planets moved in perfect circles and that their orbits might be related by the platonic solids in some way. The evidence eventually persuaded him to discard these ideas in favour of a pretty accurate mathematical description of orbits.

Albert Michelson and Edward Morley had the preconceived notion that there was a luminiferous aether and they were trying to measure the aether wind with their famous experiment. Instead the experiment seriously damaged the aether hypothesis.

At a more mundane level, scientific experiments are always performed with a preconceived notion in mind. Scientists don't just perform experiments at random hoping to find something by chance. They usually have a preconceived notion (called a hypothesis) that they are trying to test.

[Maus]

My curiosity lead to skepticism. It might sound strange but I was always curious why things were perceived the way they were. I kept asking myself the "why?" question and eventually it would lead to an understanding of how things worked from a purely scientific perspective.

After I dug deep enough, I discovered that the foundations for many things that I took for granted as a child were inherently wrong. I quickly discovered that religion was one of those things, as well as many non-paranormal things as marketing schemes and other gimmicks.

I find it is very difficult to find certainty when even so-called experts don't understand what they claim as truth.

-Maus

[JihadJane]

When I saw the bloated corpse of a Bangladeshi flood victim floating down a river on TV.

[BrianE]

Who can you trust?

In Snopes we trust. snopes.com

[Senex]

I became a skeptic when I discovered the nurses in the Naughty Nurses series were in fact actresses and not real nurses.

[AndyD]

I think we're all skeptics, just to differing degrees and in different areas. Some people probably aren't skeptical enough for their own good and they end up sending money to the Nigerian Freedom Front on the assumption they'll get millions back in return.

The vast majority of people treat such scam offers with a large dose of skepticism but many of these skeptical people will still give money to a carnival "psychic" on the assumption they'll get to speak with dead relatives.

The difference between the "average" person and many/most of the people on this forum is the degree of skepticism. Many of us here treat anything seemingly inexplicable with skepticism. It doesn't necessarily mean we dismiss it outright, just that we don't automatically assume everything we see promoted in the media is true.

Personally, I think that most people cope adequately with a mix of belief and skepticism. It only becomes a problem when the mix tends toward fundamentalism. If you are too gullible, you set yourself up to be used and abused by unscrupulous people. If you are so skeptical you trust no one, life would be intolerable.

The battle that skeptical activists wage is mainly against those who seek to exploit people who don't generally assume a skeptical stance with regard to incredible claims. Why we do it is another question and one I've asked myself.

Here is a quote from Michael Shermer who is explaining what Skepticism and Science are:

"The default position in science is that: whatever it is you think you believe in, it is not true, unless you prove it otherwise"

In other words, humans are stupid and wrong. Their natural tendencies will lead them astray. Only science is a true guide in separating superstition from truth, and reality from fantasy.

I think your paraphrasing is a little off. I don't read those words with the same level of harshness you ascribe. I see it more as a position of "nothing is actually true until proven so" or more simply "assume nothing".

There's no suggestion of stupidity in his comment since that is a relative term and if everyone is stupid then, since that would be the norm, no one would be stupid. (Dash in Pixar's The Incredibles hit on this idea when he noted that when everyone is special, no one is). "Stupid" suggests an unwillingness or inability to learn and Shermer isn't suggesting that as a default position. That would be stupid ;)

Note also that he was speaking about the default position in science, not life in general, so we shouldn't make assumptions (from that quote alone) on what he thinks the default position is for everyone.

[geni]

Do you trust experience? [/qupte]

The odds of the same set of conditions appearing twice are minimal.

[quote]
Do you trust bravery?


Calculated risk takeing is a more logical aproach.


#1. I trust the premise that "I don't know anything" and the world we live in is profoundly different than the way it appears to us.


Diffine appears.


#2. I trust the fact that science is the best method to understand the world around us. It is the most reliable and consistent provider of truth. It allows us to build tools that absolutely improve our quality of life. Only science has proven itself faithful to humanities advancement.

For a given value of advancement. Science also gives us the ability to kill on a scale that would make the average european imperialist blink.


In other words, humans are stupid and wrong. Their natural tendencies will lead them astray. Only science is a true guide in separating superstition from truth, and reality from fantasy.

Science as a guide is extreamly dangerious. Badly phrased questions can tend to cause problematical answers. For example the question "how can we redecide the number of AIDS cases?" risks produceing the answer "by instituting mass testing and killing everyone with HIV".



Science is now my only means of advancing.


How much have you really questioned science?

[geni]

Shermer is correct.

In science, we don't start with our preconceived notions and then try to prove them false. In science, we start with nothing and work our way from there.

If we start with our preconceived notions, we basically use the trial-and-error method, but without knowing exactly what it is we are doing. That's why medicine was so haphazard and dangerous (often lethal) right up until we learned about correct models of molecules, which didn't happen until we had a pretty good understanding of what atoms are.

False. Our models of atoms came about because we had preconcived notions (in fact people had a pretty solid hold on simple molecules were before working out what atoms were but that is secondary).

There was first the plum pudding model. It sort of works for some limited kinds of chemistry and electrons. Then Rutherford came along with his gold foil experiment which resulted in a new model the Rutherford model. Which kinda works if you are prepared to accept matter haveing an unreasonably short lifespan. The Bohr model gets around this but I think has issues with the shapes of the orbitals. There are a couple more steps but then we get to the Schrodinger model which works fine except we can't provide exact solutions for most of the equations. Starting from nothing is very uncommon in science.

[arthwollipot]

I trust chillzero.

[Hokulele]

Who can you trust?

In Snopes we trust. snopes.com


I'm sorry, I just have to do this.

http://xkcd.com/250/

[arthwollipot]

I'm sorry, I just have to do this.

http://xkcd.com/250/Dont' apologise, Hokulele. All threads can benefit with the addition of a little xkcd.

Xkcd is the new cowbell.

[Hokulele]

Dont' apologise, Hokulele. All threads can benefit with the addition of a little xkcd.

Xkcd is the new cowbell.


Yay!

http://xkcd.com/207/

You must, must, read the mouseover on this one.

[arthwollipot]

:D I also trust Hokulele.

[Mashuna]

:D I also trust Hokulele.

Ok Hokulele, he's got his guard down now. Anytime you're ready. . .

[snoop_doxie]

Ok Hokulele, he's got his guard down now. Anytime you're ready. . .

I trust Mashuna. Why? Because I trust all fluffy white sheep from Welsh Wales.

My move to skepticism is still in progress. Only because sometimes its easier to blame outside forces for my predicament , thus, I have no control and no choices to make. :blush:

Maybe it's part of recovery. yeah, that's the ticket.

[arthwollipot]

Ok Hokulele, he's got his guard down now. Anytime you're ready. . .I trust Mashuna.

I trust medication... whee!

[Mashuna]

I trust Mashuna. Why? Because I trust all fluffy white sheep from Welsh Wales.

My move to skepticism is still in progress. Only because sometimes its easier to blame outside forces for my predicament , thus, I have no control and no choices to make. :blush:

Maybe it's part of recovery. yeah, that's the ticket.

We're all very trustworthy. Although you do have to watch out for the sheep in wolf's clothing.

http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Killer_Sheep.jpg

[chillzero]

It would be nice to get a response back from the OP poster. Then perhaps we might be in with a chance of nudging this back on topic?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Who can you trust?

Everyone and anything to a certain degree.

Can you trust yourself, your perceptions and intuitions?

To a certain degree.

Can you trust people who are smarter than you?

To a certain degree.

Can you trust scientists?

To a certain degree.

Authority figures?

To a certain degree.

The news?

To a certain degree.

Your parents?

To a certain degree.

Your friends?

I don't have any, but if I did I'd say to a certain degree.

Your social support network?

To a certain degree.

Do you trust experience?

To a certain degree.

Do you trust bravery?

Huh?

I was wondering how you became a skeptic?

The realisation I don't have absolute belief in anyone or anything.

What is your motivation for being a skeptic?

I think doubt is a better survival strategy than belief.

[arthwollipot]

It would be nice to get a response back from the OP poster. Then perhaps we might be in with a chance of nudging this back on topic?I think Ivor's post illustrates the problem quite well. The OP is vague and asks lots of questions that do not lend themselves to definite answers. While I appreciate the intent of the post, it's kinda hard to respond to properly.

[Wowbagger]

I still have doubts that I am a skeptic.

[streetsmart1980]

Thanks for the stories on how you became a skeptic. I'll have to check out those 'naughty nurses' some time.

My motivation for becoming a skeptic also accumulated over time. I guess if you get duped enough by a variety of sources you will eventually develop a sort of skeptical toolbox. I am just glad there are so many great programs like Bulls-Hit and Mythbusters available now a days. I learn best visually and through comedy. I just wish those programs had been around earlier. It would have saved me a lot of trouble.

I didn't mean to come off harsh. I guess calling humans stupid and wrong didn't sound quite right. What I meant with that is my observation that most people I have encountered wouldn't come up with a decent skeptical toolbox on their own. I have been severely mislead by my own ideas and feelings. Most people I know are the same way, but it is only a small section of the population that ends up refining those tools and consistently using them. I have met many engineers, physicists, chemists and other highly educated professionals that totally believe in a lot of woo. It appears that a majority of people in history have also been very gullible and superstitious. I find that the education system in the west as I know it doesn't do a very good job of expanding a persons skeptical / reasoning toolbox. That's why I think those skills are so rare. Science and skepticsm are not necessarily natural occurrences in every day people. Hence we are susceptible to self delusions. Also there have always been people throughout history who were more educated than others and they were very well able to take advantage of the less educated. Certain Religious movements were more guilty of this than others. There have also been super-deluded maniacs that have manipulated regular people into supporting atrocious movements. Think Hitler. People throughout history have had a tendency to fall for such irrational traps. Most people I know are so busy working and chasing toys that they are unable to double check the movements / beliefs they are caught up in. I always found that frightening and unacceptable.

By saying "I have separated myself from the masses" I don't mean that I am better than others. It is not a judgment of value, but merely a statement of fact. If someone chooses to become a leader, they separate themselves from pure followers. If they choose to produce, then they separate themselves from pure consumers. One route takes substantial effort and is the road less traveled. The other route doesn't take much effort at all. All I was saying was, that I had made a conscious decision to avoid the common default life, because I found it to be obviously a dangerous and vulnerable path. I never wanted to be someone elses subject, I made the effort to guide my own destiny, hence I separated myself from a large amount of people. I mean look at the number of people that believe in the paranormal. Look at the programming on Television. The marketing experts, the businessmen at the top, the ones demanding maximum profit at any cost know that regular people will watch and believe lies rather than science / skepticism. It sells better, or at least it does for now and it has in the past. I welcome disagreement on any of these points.

Looking back on my journey I got trapped in a lot of different places. With my initial questions I was getting at the idea that I couldn't trust people so much, because many of them didn't have the skeptical toolbox either. I am grateful that there are organizations out there that have compiled the principals of skepticism for people like myself to adopt. I wouldn't have come up with them on my own. I am convinced that the principals of skepticism are essential to an exceptionally good life, and that was always what I wanted.

As to how much I have questioned science?
Not much. To me science is a large collection of 'facts'. It is a system developed by humans to research practical things in a way that tries to minimize the common mistakes people make in observing reality. It helps us guide our next areas of inquiry. As a principal I think it is sound. As a collection of information I think it is also great. We will continue to refine our understandings and that is an excellent position.

So is snopes.com trustworthy or not? I am relying on it for now.

[arthwollipot]

So is snopes.com trustworthy or not? I am relying on it for now.Snopes is pretty well researched and generally trustworthy. But make sure you read through their Lost Legends (http://snopes.com/lost/lost.asp) page.

[streetsmart1980]

Originally Posted by streetsmart1980 View Post
So is snopes.com trustworthy or not? I am relying on it for now.
Snopes is pretty well researched and generally trustworthy. But make sure you read through their Lost Legends page.

I read the lost legends page. I don't see how it is relevant.

[Hokulele]

http://snopes.com/lost/false.asp

[arthwollipot]

I read the lost legends page. I don't see how it is relevant.

http://snopes.com/lost/false.aspThanks Hokulele. Yes, this was the point of the Lost Legends page. I was hoping that streetsmart would come to it him/her(?)self like I did. It's a very powerful message when you read the legends as presented, then suddenly something seems not quite right, so you look for "more information about this page" and get the story.

Streetsmart, snopes.com is generally fairly reliable. But you should not use it as a sole authoritative source. Any source can get things wrong, including Snopes. Always do your own research on subjects that are important to you.

[Telaynay's G'son]

Who can you trust?

Can you trust yourself, your perceptions and intuitions?
Can you trust people who are smarter than you?
Can you trust scientists? Authority figures? The news?
Your parents? Your friends? Your social support network?
Do you trust experience? Do you trust bravery?

I have trusted all of the above. They helped me expand my perspective. By following the course of our civilization I have achieved a much clearer and accurate understanding of reality than I ever would have come to on my own. I have agressively pursued the knowledge and power these sources provide. Thereby I have set myself apart from the masses.

Here are the things I currently trust:
#1. I trust the premise that "I don't know anything" and the world we live in is profoundly different than the way it appears to us.
#2. I trust the fact that science is the best method to understand the world around us. It is the most reliable and consistent provider of truth. It allows us to build tools that absolutely improve our quality of life. Only science has proven itself faithful to humanities advancement. Would that include a splitting of the atom?

Here is a quote from Michael Shermer who is explaining what Skepticism and Science are:

"The default position in science is that: whatever it is you think you believe in, it is not true, unless you prove it otherwise"

In other words, humans are stupid and wrong. Their natural tendencies will lead them astray. Only science is a true guide in separating superstition from truth, and reality from fantasy.

I was wondering how you became a skeptic?
I became a skeptic, because all of my sources of trust eventually ended up failing me and letting me down. They failed to question themselves and practically demanded I fully commit myself to them. Once I exhausted their help I gave up on everything and became a skeptic. Science is now my only means of advancing.

What is your motivation for being a skeptic?
I kind of ended up here by accident. My initial goal in life was to become absolutely free from deception. I wanted to live the greatest life I could possibly live. I have come to the conclusion that skepticism is an absolute critical part for me to accomplish and maintain that goal. I also want to share that freedom with others.

Skeptical of some skeptics.

[CFLarsen]

The point is that neither Kepler, Michelson or Morley started from scratch: They tested their hypotheses, built on observations. Since scientific observations suggested that orbits were perfect circles, Kepler went with that. Likewise, since scientific observations showed that whenever something was moving, it was carried by something (e.g., sound through air), the hypothesis of an aether was suggested.

The difference lies in how the observations have been achieved: Do we rely on people imagining that a chariot drags the Sun across the sky, or do we rely on the scientific explanation, based on logic, rationality and sound models?

That's why Shermer is right: We should start with the idea that we are wrong, and seek to find out what is real, instead of what our senses tell us. There has to be positive evidence - not belief that needs to be disproven.

If the latter was true, psychics would be real, until proven false. Ain't working that way.

[Popsicle]

I like Snopes because they'll actually revisit their research and make changes to inaccurate information.

I became a skeptic when all those urban legends I heard in elementary/middle school turned out to be false. Can't tell you how disappointing it was to learn that someone didn't actually go blind from getting a crab louse in their eye at a strip club.

[Telaynay's G'son]

The point is that neither Kepler, Michelson or Morley started from scratch: They tested their hypotheses, built on observations. Since scientific observations suggested that orbits were perfect circles, Kepler went with that. Likewise, since scientific observations showed that whenever something was moving, it was carried by something (e.g., sound through air), the hypothesis of an aether was suggested.

The difference lies in how the observations have been achieved: Do we rely on people imagining that a chariot drags the Sun across the sky, or do we rely on the scientific explanation, based on logic, rationality and sound models?

Perhaps, that was their "scientific" context for explaining the event at that particular time. Applying a literal interpretation (today) of yesterday's context may be somewhat problematic when you consider the possibility that tomorrow's science may render today's version archaic in application.

That's why Shermer is right: We should start with the idea that we are wrong, and seek to find out what is real, instead of what our senses tell us. There has to be positive evidence - not belief that needs to be disproven.

If the latter was true, psychics would be real, until proven false. Ain't working that way.

Is there any place for wisdom and compassion within the realm of science?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Is there any place for wisdom and compassion within the realm of science?

Since science is a human activity and humans value both wisdom and compassion, the answer is yes.

[Hokulele]

Is there any place for wisdom and compassion within the realm of science?


That all depends on what you choose to include in the "realm of science". Consider this question: Is there any place for wisdom and compassion within the realm of cooking?

[Telaynay's G'son]

Since science is a human activity and humans value both wisdom and compassion, the answer is yes.

Agreed, and with the fallibility of humans ergo, the fallibility of science but as long as the wisdom to recognize tomorrow may furnish new revelation/discovery perhaps we won't let today's high opinion of ourselves make us look foolish to future generations.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Agreed, and with the fallibility of humans ergo, the fallibility of science but as long as the wisdom to recognize tomorrow may furnish new revelation/discovery perhaps we won't let today's high opinion of ourselves make us look foolish to future generations.

I'd have thought wisdom would have brought the knowledge that no matter what your achievements or how smart you are, you will ALWAYS be considered a bit daft by future generations for something you believed in or did.

Perhaps a high opinion of our ourselves is required to make progress? Without it we may be paralysed by doubt and uncertainty.