Skeptical belief

[pmckean]

When I debate people who believe in the supernatural or paranormal; God, Ghosts, Feng Shui, Homeopathy, UFOs etc, I adopt an intellectual neutrality on the existence of such things, and ask for irrefutable, demonstrable, repeatable, material evidence.

However, I secretly just simply DON'T believe in any of them, despite my declared position.

I guess this is a belief, as I have no evidential support against their supernatural theories.

Does this make me a woo?

[RandFan]

No.

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Woo

Extraordinary beliefs for which it is felt there is insufficient extraordinary evidence

If your car stops working do you imagine that the source of the problem is paranormal or do you believe that there is a rational explanation for the problem?

If you believe that gremlins are the cause and you seek the advice of a spiritual adviser then you are a woo.

If you believe that there is a down to earth answer and you take your car to a mechanic then you are not a woo.

Believing that there is no such things as gremlins is not woo.

[tkingdoll]

No. What you are describing is absence of belief in an irrational thing. Woos believe in irrational things despite lack of evidence or often in the face of overwhelming evidence to disprove their pet belief.

I wouldn't worry about labels anyway. Skeptic, woo, these are narrow definitions. It doesn't actually matter what you call yourself as long as you live in a way that makes you comfortable. You have found an excellent way to organise what is or isn't worth your time - critical thinking is a toolkit for everyday life in that sense, so as long as you are employing the toolkit, it doesn't matter what names you give yourself.

[pmckean]

OK, this is the way I normally think too. I'm not a woo (and yes, I don't like the label either).

So, should we always assume the position that something doesn't exist until presented with irrefutable evidence?

It's easy to do so with extreme examples; Gremlins etc, but the problem is that science is a moving target and frequently subject to revision. That's a good thing - and it demonstrates that scientists have a truly open mind. If we absolutely deny the existence of something so completely outside our sphere of current knowledge, are we closing our mind to extreme possibilities?

For example, if someone told me that Unicorns definitely used to be real, I'd think they were a wacko.

But;

A Unicorn, as described, is a horse-like thing with a horn.
A Unicorn is a mammal.
A Rhinoceros has a horn.
A Rhinoceros is a mammal.
Some mammals have horns.

Although it may yet be undiscovered, I can't say for sure that no one will ever discover the fossilized remains of a horned horse. It would be startling, and for all I know it may be entirely contrary to current evolutionary theory - but science would revise evolution based on the new information and it would become all the stronger for it.

Shouldn't I be thinking "Unicorns may or may not exist outside of fairy tales, and I will require extraordinary proof of their existence to change my position from neutrality to positive belief", instead of "Unicorns simply dont exist and never did"?

What I'm wondering here is whether disbelief should always be a skeptic's default position?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

pmckean,

There is a distinction between:

1. I do not believe that boojums exist, and

2. I believe that no boojums exist.

As far as I can see, the general skeptical position is best expressed by 1. However, because skeptics insist that the burden of proof rests on the party making an unrestricted existential assertion ( "There are boojums"), the positions coincide for most purposes.

If this point is already familiar to you, please forgive an old man's chuntering...

[Outhere]

A unicorn as depicted in medieval tapestries and art is a small goat-like creature, with cloven hooves, a hairless tail with a tuft on the end, perhaps even a split lip like a goat. It is possible that a goat has occasionally been born with a horn or vestigial horn growing from its forehead. The horse with a horn stuck in the middle of its forehead is a recent concoction, as seen in that Tom Cruise movie where he smiled a lot and there was a lot of glittery stuff in the air. Thank the gods, I've forgotten the name.

[gumboot]

The horse with a horn stuck in the middle of its forehead is a recent concoction, as seen in that Tom Cruise movie where he smiled a lot and there was a lot of glittery stuff in the air. Thank the gods, I've forgotten the name.


That would be "Legend".

:P

Although the medieval and pre-medieval versions of the "unicorn" varied a lot.

The most widely accepted medieval version - as appearing in medieval heraldry, is as follows:

"a horse with a goat's cloven hooves and beard, a lion's tail, and a slender, spiral horn on its forehead"

I imagine they dropped the beard because a horse would just look silly with a beard, and the lions tail and cloven hooves probably proved fairly difficult to generate with ease.

-Andrew

[pmckean]

Pedants!

I was trying to think of decent examples. At first, I thought "People used to thing the world was flat..." but apparently that's been thoroughly debunked. There there was Heinrich Schliemann, the German industrialist who dug where the Iliad say Troy was and FOUND it, reversing centuries of learned opinion on the existence of a previously mythical place. Largely bunk. Guy was a total conman.

Now I'm told Unicorns were goats.

Everything I know is wrong.

EVERYTHING!

[Jimbo07]

I guess this is a belief, as I have no evidential support against their supernatural theories.

Does this make me a woo?

Refer to the 'Green', 'Orange', 'Purple' skeptics debates...

:D

[Admiral]

I've discovered something about many of the woos on this forum (I know, I'm new, I'm sure most of you noticed this a long time ago.) They like to describe "skepticism" as a philosophy: hammegk keeps using "skepticism" and "physicalism" interchangably, and Interesting Ian using flowery philosophical arguments about the nature of knowledge that supposedly prove that psychic powers exist.

I think they're confusing "skepticism" with a belief that there is nothing in life but the immediately known. They then point to the new discoveries science makes all the time, and say that skeptics live firmly in the past and refuse to change their beliefs. By comparing skepticism to physicalism, hammy is also implying that skeptics believe there is nothing to the universe any deeper than the material.

I'm sure you'll all agree that that is grossly misstating the skeptic mindset. It's not a single belief in the purely physical. It's an attitude of "Want me to believe it? Show me."

They point to quantum mechanics as being an unexpected leap in science that skepticism supposedly would oppose. Well, scientists demonstrated the accurate predictions that quantum mechanics makes through rigorous work with particle accelerators and cyclotrons and other mechanisms- so skeptics believe it.

In the meantime, no evidence has been presented to support the existence of psychics- no good, replicable evidence. Skeptics don't doubt the existence of psychics because it challenges their worldview- they doubt their existence because there's no evidence that psychics exist.

I can't see why that's so hard for Ian and hammy to understand- skepticism isn't a rigid system of belief that excludes ESP and alternative health and intelligent design... it's just an attitude that you're not going to believe something until there's real evidence for it.

Skeptics aren't asking for some sort of philosophical argument like "Ergo, because all energies must radiate from the soul, humans must contain the capacity for ESP" or whatever. They're asking for a demonstration of what most psychics claim to do every day. Uri Geller bends spoons without touching them? Great- bend a spoon without touching it. Sylvia Browne can communicate with other people telepathically? OK, communicate with other people telepathically. Until they show a controlled demonstration, skeptics aren't going to entertain arguments like "Science doesn't have all the answers" and "Quantum effects can occur at a distance." We just want evidence.

Just something that's been bothering me...

[gumboot]

Now I'm told Unicorns were goats.


If it makes you feel any better, they're not goats. They're horses with a goat's beard and cloven hooves. (and a lion's tail...in some versions a deer's head...)

Oh yeah.

And a horn. :D

-Andrew

[pmckean]

At least there's a horn.

[drfrank]

At least there's a horn.
Of course there's a horn! According to 17th century tradition, a unicorn's horn plays the first four bars of `La Cuchuracha' to warn people of its approach.

[tsg]

I can't see why that's so hard for Ian and hammy to understand- skepticism isn't a rigid system of belief that excludes ESP and alternative health and intelligent design... it's just an attitude that you're not going to believe something until there's real evidence for it.

Because it means they get to dismiss it out of hand because it interferes with how they want the world to be.

[Ducky]

I am skeptical the Detroit Lions will ever win a superbowl. does this make me irrational?

[Stellafane]

...that Tom Cruise movie where he smiled a lot and there was a lot of glittery stuff in the air. Thank the gods, I've forgotten the name.

It think it was called Legend. And it's become my ne plus ultra when discussing actors miscast in particular roles. I have yet to encounter a single actor as miscast as Cruise was in that weird "nature boy" role (not even Keanu Reeves playing Shakespeare came close, and that was pretty bad).

Mia Sara, on the other hand...

[Stellafane]

I am skeptical the Detroit Lions will ever win a superbowl. does this make me irrational?

In a way, yes. Before 2004, I was utterly convinced -- convinced! -- that I would never see the Red Sox win the World Series in my lifetime. I couldn't even imagine it. In my mind, the chances of the Lions going undefeated and winning the Super Bowl 50 - 0 was infinitely greater.