A new cynic !

[Francois Tremblay]

Some people on this board use the term "cynic" to designate people who would never be convinced. Well, I've decided to adopt it. Because of my epistemic position, I am now of the position that "extraordinary claims CANNOT be justified".

For example, I remember it was found a while ago that pressure at certain areas of the skin could reduce pain, or somesuch thing. It was hailed as evidence of acupuncture. But acupuncture is justified by old pseudo-science and belief. "Acupuncture" as a belief can NEVER be proven !

We can prove scientific hypotheses, but not beliefs. Whatever you want to call that hypothesis, it is not "acupuncture".

In the same way, if perhaps more simplistically, no one would believe in Santa Claus, even if evidence was given. Santa Claus is a child's story. Even if there was an old man with a white beard living in a factory at the North Pole, it would have nothing to do with the concept "Santa Claus".

The larger epistemic issue at hand is whether a belief can be found true by anything else but justification through evidence - whether we have grounds to consider anything beyond what the evidence gives us. Since I've come to hold that the answer is "no", I have come to the inevitable conclusion that extraordinary claims cannot possibly be found true.

[espritch]

cyn·ic (snk)
n.
1. A person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness.
2. A person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.
3. Cynic A member of a sect of ancient Greek philosophers who believed virtue to be the only good and self-control to be the only means of achieving virtue.


None of these deffinitions really matches the view point you are describing.

The larger epistemic issue at hand is whether a belief can be found true by anything else but justification through evidence - whether we have grounds to consider anything beyond what the evidence gives us.

So far, you are merely stating the basic assumption of skepticism.

Since I've come to hold that the answer is "no", I have come to the inevitable conclusion that extraordinary claims cannot possibly be found true.

This depends on the nature of the claim. The claim that sticking needles in a person's skin can heal diseases, stop pain, etc. is an extraordinary claim. If, however, sufficient reproducible clinical evidence could be presented demonstrating that acupuncture does indeed produce the claimed effects, a reasonable skeptic would have to accept that the phenomenum exists.

However, it does not follow that the skeptic would have to accept the existence of meridians, chakras, and qui as the cause of the phenomenum. The chi/meridian/chakra hypothesis would have to be provable independent of the acupunture effect it claims to explain.

[Beerina]

Cynic: Someone who sees things as they are, not as they wish them to be. -- Ambrose Bierce

[prewitt81]

It looks to me like you're defining extraordinary claims as things that can't be reasonably arrived at by solid evidence. That makes the statement:
extraordinary claims CANNOT be justified
more tautological than profound.

[Kopji]

Ugh labels usually just suck wind.
Forget the skeptic or sceptic thing...

I'm ok to be just being called a "critic" on some things.


Main Entry: 1crit·ic
Pronunciation: 'kri-tik
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin criticus, from Greek kritikos, from kritikos able to discern or judge, from krinein

1 a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances

2 : one given to harsh or captious judgment

http://www.m-w.com


If #1 doesn't work sometimes I move on to #2. :)

Even 1b works for me, if you think like I do, that most 'belief' things are all just aesthetic expressions.

[Francois Tremblay]

If "extraordinary claims cannot be proven" is tautological, then skepticism is false tautologically. After all, most of you uphold that extraordinary claims COULD be proven, at least on paper. That we CAN have evidence of, say, acupuncture. That idea I reject absolutely.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
After all, most of you uphold that extraordinary claims COULD be proven, at least on paper. That we CAN have evidence of, say, acupuncture. That idea I reject absolutely.

And they could. It's REALLY unlikely, but to reject claims forever and ever... well, that way lies madness. Or faith. I'm not sure which is worse.

I'm a skeptic not because it is a perfect concept, but because it seems to be the most effective mechanism to approach the truth. Flat out denial is antithetical to this.