We are so Atractive, Everyone wants to be us

[Overman]

Okay,

What is so hard about skepticism and science?

People make up religions (scientology) that attempt to appear "scientific" in nature to the casual reader....

People call themselves "9/11 Skeptics" when they don't have a skeptical thought in their head....


Why would these people want association with science and skepticism, but not actual skepticism?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It lends the air of credibility. Deep down, they know that objective, testable, evidence and sound logical reasoning are the best building blocks for a successful argument/hypothesis and they want them. They also realize, perhaps subconsciously, that if they actually go down the path of skepticism/critical-thinking/scientific-process that their own ideas will be called in to question. So, they stop themselves so they do not have to introspect.

Notice also, how they project their own shortcomings onto many critical/skeptical critiques of their beliefs (accusations of the opposition being a cult or religion, closemindedness, failing to think logically, etc).

[Overman]

I was thinking about the same....

So the problem is change?....The people are fearing a change in their lives?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Change and uncertainty. Think about it, science is built upon the idea of "provisional agreement/truth". We say things are they way they are, "so far as we know". This is very different from most other school of thought that deal with "Truth".

[tsg]

Why would these people want association with science and skepticism, but not actual skepticism?

Because man's desire to believe he is right is much stronger than his desire to be right.

Actual science and skepticism is hard work.

[rjh01]

Because people who know science are a far bigger group that any other single group. So they are trying to say they are only a variation on this group not separate from it.

[T'ai Chi]

Why would these people want association with science and skepticism, but not actual skepticism?

Skepticism just means doubt. That is why one psychic can be skeptical about another, for example.

[Luke T.]

Okay,

What is so hard about skepticism and science?

People make up religions (scientology) that attempt to appear "scientific" in nature to the casual reader....

People call themselves "9/11 Skeptics" when they don't have a skeptical thought in their head....


Why would these people want association with science and skepticism, but not actual skepticism?

Because real science is harder. It's just that simple.

It requires thinking, which can be very painful.

The brain is like a muscle. If you don't exercise it regularly, it turns to mush. So you have your "16 ounce curls" weightlifters and your paranormal junior scientists.

[Luke T.]

Because people who know science are a far bigger group that any other single group. So they are trying to say they are only a variation on this group not separate from it.

I'm afraid it is the other way around. People who know science are in the minority.

One look at a TV Guide will tell you.

[Huntster]

We are so Atractive, Everyone wants to be us

Actually, not.

However, I am very skeptical about your ability to spell. Thus, I am a skeptic.

It's "attractive", not "atractive".

[LTC8K6]

Nobody likes a spelling Nazi.

[fuelair]

Nobody likes a spelling Nazi.

Hopefully, nobody likes a Nazi who can't spell either. Deutschland Unter alles!!:D

[Zep]

Y-knot?

[Huntster]

Nobody likes a spelling Nazi.

Spelling Nazi's don't give a damn if they're liked or not, as long as you spell correctly, and realize that others might not want to "be like you".

[Pardalis]

You can get a message across without perfect spelling. At least I hope so.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Actually, not.

However, I am very skeptical about your ability to spell. Thus, I am a skeptic.

It's "attractive", not "atractive".

Yes, because I'm sure it couldn't have been a typographical error; which is not correctable once if it is the title of the thread.

[CFLarsen]

Skepticism just means doubt.

Crossposted:
BEEP!

Wrong.

Skepticism is not merely doubt.

Skeptics - and I most certainly don't include you - also seek answers, natural explanations. Skeptics check claims, skeptics investigate.

Merely saying "I doubt" does not make you a skeptic. You also need a good understanding of science. You need to be able to tell a sound argument from a phony one. You need to know about the various methods of deception that claimants of the paranormal employs. And you need to be willing to exchange your knowledge. If you know something, you share it with others.

Saying "I doubt" without employing critical thinking is an intellectually lazy attitude, where you pretend to be a skeptic. In reality, you are nothing but a nay-sayer.

That is why one psychic can be skeptical about another, for example.

Looks like I'm psychic:

It is semantics in the sense that T'ai wants to argue that just because you doubt, you are a skeptic. That means that Sylvia Browne is a skeptic - despite her wackiness, she doesn't believe in every woo belief there is.

So, with that little semantical trick, T'ai has put Randi and other skeptics on equal footing with Sylvia Browne.

That's why it is so important to point out that skepticism isn't merely doubt.

A psychic is not skeptical about other psychics, because, in order to be a skeptic, one has to be consistent: You are not a skeptic, if you are not prepared to apply the same methods to your own beliefs and the beliefs of others.

Especially when those beliefs are the same.

Your feeble attempts of putting Randi and other skeptics in the same booth as crooks like Sylvia Browne, John Edward and James van Praagh will not be successful.

[Zep]

Spelling Nazi's Nazis don't give a damn if they're liked or not, as long as you spell correctly, and realize realise that others might not want to "be like you".Indeed.

[Mr. Scott]

Spelling Nazi's don't give a damn if they're liked or not, as long as you spell correctly, and realize that others might not want to "be like you".

Indeed.

realize - Correct American spelling.
realise - Correct British spelling.
Nazi's don't give a damn - Huntster glass house

"be like you". - Punctuation error (the period belongs inside the quotes).

[articulett]

Okay,

What is so hard about skepticism and science?

People make up religions (scientology) that attempt to appear "scientific" in nature to the casual reader....

People call themselves "9/11 Skeptics" when they don't have a skeptical thought in their head....


Why would these people want association with science and skepticism, but not actual skepticism?

And since this somewhat fits the question--Is "Christian Scientist" an oxymoron--and if so, shouldn't the moron be before oxy?

And what about the dude who thinks he's king of the hill by being skeptical of the skeptics (us nefarious people who gather to worship all the stuff we don't believe in--oh, and run the universe, of course.)

They are fun--but are they really necessary--I mean REALLY? (other than for our amusement, of course.)

[articulett]

Because man's desire to believe he is right is much stronger than his desire to be right.

Actual science and skepticism is hard work.

Actually it's easy. Just follow the facts. But religion teaches you to fit the facts into the truth you want.

It's best to build the puzzle with the pieces for that puzzle--if some are missing, so be it; you can still see a lot of the picture--however jamming pieces from other bigger puzzles into the equation and telling people what it's supposed to be is more common. It's against the rules in the reality based community--but who needs rules when you have "higher truths".

I am sick of have to explain actual "truth" (that which is supported by axioms--facts that would be absurd to deny) from supposed "higher truths"--that which looks and smells like poop but can be molded into pretty little animals. But the animals still don't fit into the puzzle.

I keep having to remind people about facts being measurable--not nebulously defined terms that can never be proven or disproven that the scientists haven't had the "x" to fathom yet...

but I speak to brains impervious to logic--biting from the tree of knowledge leads to hell, afterall...and all scientists are evil and out for the buck aren't they?

[Overman]

I forgot about Christian scientists! I am sure there are many many others...

I think that skepticism itself is easy...I think the sudden or gradual change to it is what may be hard. Just like it would be hard to be an athiest in a family full of Irish Catholics...It would probably to be hard, and mabye even emberessing(havat spelling Nazi!), to suddenly change your views on the acupuncutre treatments you have been raving to your family about for the past ten years...

In a case like this you would lose accountibility with your family, and while you would gain the respect of the people here in the skeptical movement, those ties do not necessarly bind....hopefully one can make this change out of respect for one's self and mind.

[articulett]

Nobody likes a spelling Nazi.

I do. (well I did once)

[articulett]

Crossposted:
Looks like I'm psychic:

Your feeble attempts of putting Randi and other skeptics in the same booth as crooks like Sylvia Browne, John Edward and James van Praagh will not be successful.

But I bet he'll keep doing it anyhow.

My brother just told me I have "faith" in science. I brought out the dictionary to show that faith is "belief without or despite evidence"--and showed how science was built upon axioms--piece by piece...but it didn't register. He's a lawyer; what do you imagine the mental block could be, hmm?

Ye' old intelligent design "theory" as science ploy--same song, second verse--

[articulett]

I forgot about Christian scientists! I am sure there are many many others...

I think that skepticism itself is easy...I think the sudden or gradual change to it is what may be hard. Just like it would be hard to be an athiest in a family full of Irish Catholics...It would probably to be hard, and mabye even emberessing(havat spelling Nazi!), to suddenly change your views on the acupuncutre treatments you have been raving to your family about for the past ten years...

In a case like this you would lose accountibility with your family, and while you would gain the respect of the people here in the skeptical movement, those ties do not necessarly bind....hopefully one can make this change out of respect for one's self and mind.

I recall a TAM meeting where Julia Sweeney mentioned priest who still practice who have lost all faith--but are trained for nothing else. I was raised in that Paradigm (lived in fear of getting a calling, mind you--and worse fear of suffering anguish for all eternity of course--) and I kept looking for a kernal of sense or wisdom, but I never did find it and couldn't figure out how I was supposed to sort out which guy was infallible and which one was Jesus as a begger (Heck, Manson said he was Jesus, right?) and which were the false prophets--just a bunch of guys--somewhat the same to me...like all the other prophets, messiahs, spiritual leaders, saviors, mighty overlords, divine rules, authors of divine texts, celestial dictators XENU et. al.

And I actually thought someone must have figured it out--afterall, ETERNITY was at stake--and even as a kid I knew that was way, way long--more than a gazillion to the umpteenth power plus that double and more still...

[articulett]

Indeed.

Wait now--I don't want diamond on my case about ethnocentricity--but as an American--I want to stand up for "realize". The z is correct on my spellcheck, bubba.

(or should I say, zed, eh?)

[valis]

Because real science is harder. It's just that simple.

It requires thinking, which can be very painful.

The brain is like a muscle. If you don't exercise it regularly, it turns to mush. So you have your "16 ounce curls" weightlifters and your paranormal junior scientists.

It is not only harder but it requires some backround. Not to say that the average layman can't be informed. I consider myself fairly well informed about a variety of things; but being informed is not the same as formulating your own unique argument and then providing proof.

For the most part the CTers don't seem to understand that. They want to play science without the requiste knowledge. They throw around things like free fall speed, chemical residue etc. But they don't seem to have any basic knowledge of chemistry, physics or calculus to do the arguing with.

They are trying to be something they are not and refuse to consider that there are things they don't know or understand that are critical to the debate at some point.

So they get frustrated or just make things up.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Wait now--I don't want diamond on my case about ethnocentricity--but as an American--I want to stand up for "realize". The z is correct on my spellcheck, bubba.

(or should I say, zed, eh?)

Do like I do, and take the simple out. American English is very similar to, but is not, British English. Not unlike the difference between Mexican Spanish and European Spanish.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...

So they get frustrated or just make things up.

Or tell you to "go watch these movies".

[articulett]

Do like I do, and take the simple out. American English is very similar to, but is not, British English. Not unlike the difference between Mexican Spanish and European Spanish.

But the Canadians...
I mean they aren't out there kicking anyone's a$$es or anything, but we still have to respect them right? I'm not going to be throwing extra u's in my wourds no matter what they say...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

But the Canadians...
I mean they aren't out there kicking anyone's a$$es or anything, but we still have to respect them right? I'm not going to be throwing extr u's in my wourds no matter what they say...

But, "aboot" is so much fun to say :D

[articulett]

Or tell you to "go watch these movies".

or go to this link or listen to these audios or read these books...
(souonds like your woos are lazy)

[Meffy]

Darn it, every time I see this topic in the listing I think an anthro skunk started it. Turns out it's about skeptics. *9_9*

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

or go to this link or listen to these audios or read these books...
(souonds like your woos are lazy)

Not unlike Scientology, where they make it very difficult to learn about, other than going through their brainwashing classes.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Spelling Nazi's (Nazis) don't give a damn if they're liked or not, as long as you spell correctly, and (realize) realise that others might not want to "be like you".
Indeed.

LOL!

Thanks for that correction on the apostrophe. However:

Realise: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realise)

v 1: earn on some commercial or business transaction; earn as salary or wages; "How much do you make a month in your new job?"; "She earns a lot in her new job"; "this merger brought in lots of money"; "He clears $5,000 each month" [syn: gain, take in, clear, make, earn, realize, pull in, bring in] 2: convert into cash; of goods and property [syn: realize] 3: expand or complete (a thorough-based part in a piece of baroque music) by supplying the harmonies indicated in the figured bass [syn: realize] 4: make real or concrete; give reality or substance to; "our ideas must be substantiated into actions" [syn: realize, actualize, actualise, substantiate] 5: be fully aware or cognizant of [syn: recognize, recognise, realize, agnize, agnise] 6: perceive (an idea or situation) mentally; "Now I see!"; "I just can't see your point"; "Does she realize how important this decision is?"; "I don't understand the idea" [syn: understand, realize, see]

Realize: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realize)

To comprehend completely or correctly.
To bring into reality; make real: He finally realized his lifelong ambition to learn how to play the violin.
To make realistic: a film that realizes court life of the 17th century.
To obtain or achieve, as gain or profit: She realized a substantial return on the investment.
To bring in (a sum) as profit by sale.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Spelling Nazi's don't give a damn if they're liked or not, as long as you spell correctly, and realize that others might not want to "be like you".

Originally Posted by Zep :
Indeed.

realize - Correct American spelling.
realise - Correct British spelling.
Nazi's don't give a damn - Huntster glass house

My glass house was destroyed by sticks and stones long ago. I stay outdoors now.

"be like you". - Punctuation error (the period belongs inside the quotes).

Another excellent correction.

Thank you.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by articulett :
But the Canadians...
I mean they aren't out there kicking anyone's a$$es or anything, but we still have to respect them right? I'm not going to be throwing extr u's in my wourds no matter what they say...
But, "aboot" is so much fun to say :D

Sounds cool, too.

But they still spell it "about", don't they?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Sounds cool, too.

But they still spell it "about", don't they?

Which would be why I put it in quotes, so the pronounciation would be seen as the gist of the post, and not the spelling of the word.

[Druid]

Btu Sepllnig sohuldnt rellay mtater as the barin deosnt raed the wohle wrod anwyay, as lnog as the frist and lsat lteters are in the rgiht plcae it sohlud be raedbale.

Dru.

[valis]

Not unlike Scientology, where they make it very difficult to learn about, other than going through their brainwashing classes.

The learning effort makes the material appear significant to the student.

[c4ts]

Okay,

Why would these people want association with science and skepticism, but not actual skepticism?

They are actual skeptics, but not like us. More like holocaust deniers and people who are skeptical of simple explanations for no rational reason. They lack the critical thinking JREF and other skeptical organizations have in common. I suppose they want association with that kind of skeptics because they lack those skills themselves. Sometimes the appearance of rationality is more important than truth.

[Jimbo07]

Which would be why I put it in quotes, so the pronounciation would be seen as the gist of the post, and not the spelling of the word.

It's funny, but I've never heard the pronunciation of about as sounding like, "aboot." A friend suggested that this is from a small local pattern in Northern Ontario, and not common to Canadians at all.

I've always wondered if newscasts and movies would create a more homogeneous sound to North American English. :confused:

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It's funny, but I've never heard the pronunciation of about as sounding like, "aboot." A friend suggested that this is from a small local pattern in Northern Ontario, and not common to Canadians at all.

I've always wondered if newscasts and movies would create a more homogeneous sound to North American English. :confused:

My friend from Calgary says it that way. The "oot" part is soft, but it is distinctly different from &-'baut

[skeptigirl]

:teacher:

OP question:
"Why would these people want association with science and skepticism, but not actual skepticism?"

Answers:
"Deep down, they know...they want them. They also realize, perhaps subconsciously...they stop themselves so they do not have to...they project"
"people are fearing a change"
"Change and uncertainty"
"Because man's desire to believe he is right is much stronger than his desire to be right."
"they are trying to say they are only a variation on this group not separate from it"
"Because real science is harder...thinking, which can be very painful."
"They want to play science without the requiste knowledge...They are trying to be something they are not and refuse to consider that there are things they don't know or understand...they get frustrated or just make things up"
"The learning effort makes the material appear significant to the student"

As skeptics, shouldn't all these statements be prefaced with, my opinion, my guess, my speculation, or other similar modifiers? Do these answers not reflect the same inherent problems which lead to less skeptical conclusions?

This post at least had some supporting evidence:
"I'm afraid it is the other way around. People who know science are in the minority."(supporting evidence suggested: "One look at a TV Guide will tell you."


As for these comments:
"Nobody likes a spelling Nazi."
"You can get a message across without perfect spelling"

First, there are mixed opinions as to the benefits of proper spelling and to the etiquette of pointing out spelling errors as the responses here indicate.

I see no reason to be critical of one who believes it is OK to correct one's spelling since opinions on the matter are mixed. But if you are going to criticize the critic in this case, your conclusion that everyone is with you is clearly wrong.

I believe spelling does have an impact on your credibility. On of many studies on the impression one gets from how a web page appears. (http://captology.stanford.edu/pdf/Stanford-MakovskyWebCredStudy2002-prelim.pdf) Typos at least, detract from credibility. I'm sure there is supporting evidence spelling matters as well. It certainly does for me. If I read a page or post with poor spelling AND the person is communicating in their native language, it would influence my opinion somewhat. Spell checkers are easy to use and free to download. And they improve one's spelling skills as well.

The posts which are merely chatting, and the time it takes to correct spelling (not much) could be arguments for not giving a &@#$ about it. That's fine at times as long as one recognizes the benefit of proper spelling and grammar when it is an issue.

Personally, I welcome corrections as I learn from them. I would have thought the spelling, sceptic, was wrong had someone not informed me it is a correct spelling in England. I checked and sure enough, it is an acceptable version.


T'ai Chi: "Skepticism just means doubt." CFLarson addressed this misstatement.


So allow me to address this one:
Druid: "Btu Sepllnig sohuldnt rellay mtater as the barin deosnt raed the wohle wrod anwyay, as lnog as the frist and lsat lteters are in the rgiht plcae it sohlud be raedbale....Dru."

Snopes addresses this myth here. (http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/cambridge.asp) And someone close to the supposed source of the myth posts a myth busted page here. (http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/Cmabrigde/index.html)This text circulated on the internet in September 2003. I first became aware of it when a journalist contacted a my colleague Sian Miller on 16th September, trying to track down the original source. It's been passed on many times, and in the way of most internet memes has mutated along the way. It struck me as interesting - especially when I received a version that mentioned Cambridge University! I work at Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, in Cambridge, UK, a Medical Research Council unit that includes a large group investigating how the brain processes language. If there's a new piece of research on reading that's been conducted in Cambridge, I thought I should have heard of it before...

:duck:

[tsg]

As skeptics, shouldn't all these statements be prefaced with, my opinion, my guess, my speculation, or other similar modifiers?

What else would they be? I didn't see any quotes, attributions, or citations of sources that would indicate they were someone else's opinions.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

:teacher:

OP question:
"Why would these people want association with science and skepticism, but not actual skepticism?"

Answers:
...
:duck:

I do see you point. I don't think it is unreasonable though, to assume that the point of the OP was in asking for conjecture/opinions/etc rather than a behavioral psychology explanation. In the context of the forum/subforum/thread is it wrong to assume that, unless otherwise stated, what is posted is just opinion (perhaps educated, perhaps not)?

*shrug*


edited: Because I didn't really need to quote the entire post.

[skeptigirl]

Of course a skeptic reading the posts would know these are opinions and speculation, however, my comment concerns the poster. Does the person making the statement realize just how fallible such speculation is?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Of course a skeptic reading the posts would know these are opinions and speculation, however, my comment concerns the poster. Does the person making the statement realize just how fallible such speculation is?

I fear recursive speculation. :boxedin:

[skeptigirl]

The definition of a skeptic we use here requires one recognize unsupported claims for what they are.

My second statement was a question which is one way to convey speculation.

And, had there been a single post of unsupported opinion here, I wouldn't have bothered but there was post after post of what I consider one version of making reasons up, something non-skeptics do regularly in drawing conclusions from past experience but not really thinking through what evidence supports the conclusion.

There is nothing wrong with stating opinion and nothing wrong with not prefacing the comments with, "this is my opinion". I made my comments because I wondered how many of the opinions were those conclusions we draw without thinking vs well thought out conclusions.

[Overman]

The definition of a skeptic we use here requires one recognize unsupported claims for what they are.



You forgot to say "in my opinion..."

[skeptigirl]

You forgot to say "in my opinion..."
How is a definition opinion?

[skeptigirl]

I repeat:
There is nothing wrong with stating opinion and nothing wrong with not prefacing the comments with, "this is my opinion". I made my comments because I wondered how many of the opinions were those conclusions we draw without thinking vs well thought out conclusions.

[skeptigirl]

I draw benefit from posting here and hearing other's ideas, knowledge and opinions. If one takes offense to a post and replies with retorts that miss the point altogether, then that person may lose the chance to learn from the other. Sometimes it's called for. Hypocrisy and irony are certainly targets to be pointed out. But for someone who only sees in my post that I called someone on being less than skeptical for mere semantics in how a sentence was worded, then the point was missed.

It wasn't semantics I was pointing out. I was pointing out how often people in general speak as if they are in a position of expertise on a matter when in reality, they are drawing a casual interpretation of the world. I deal with these "opinion/conclusions" all the time and continually must correct misinformation because of it.

For example, someone asks a nurse if hep B vaccine boosters are needed. Despite not having any real direct knowledge, the nurse will often give an answer. Answers come out of health care workers right and left without even considering they are not really experts on everything medical.

If the information is within the person's specialty, or they have recently reviewed the subject, they should answer. In that case not everyone will be giving perfect information, we all make mistakes or are not aware of some new information. Health education is the job of a many health care workers and to not say anything would make them totally ineffective. But often, without even thinking a health care worker will just spout out some careless opinion. It's human nature to do so as can be demonstrated by asking any group to give an opinion on matters they know a little, but not a lot about.

After having observed this time and again, and after having to correct the misinformation such a word of mouth system of communication causes, I have begun paying attention to the phenomenon. How often do we chime in with our unqualified opinion as if it is a qualified opinion? The question in this thread is a set up for such unqualified opinion. I wonder how many of us have either the expertise in psychology, or a very broad experience observing human behavior as to have a valid opinion here? Probably not many.

I'm not condemning anyone for their posts. I am merely bringing to their attention what I have observed as a frequent human behavior that perpetuates some of the misinformation which some of us are striving to decrease.

[Overman]

Please don't take offense at my comment...just being a smartass...

However,

:teacher:

OP question:
"Why would these people want association with science and skepticism, but not actual skepticism?"

Answers:
"Deep down, they know...they want them. They also realize, perhaps subconsciously...they stop themselves so they do not have to...they project"
"people are fearing a change"
"Change and uncertainty"
"Because man's desire to believe he is right is much stronger than his desire to be right."
"they are trying to say they are only a variation on this group not separate from it"
"Because real science is harder...thinking, which can be very painful."
"They want to play science without the requiste knowledge...They are trying to be something they are not and refuse to consider that there are things they don't know or understand...they get frustrated or just make things up"
"The learning effort makes the material appear significant to the student"

As skeptics, shouldn't all these statements be prefaced with, my opinion, my guess, my speculation, or other similar modifiers? Do these answers not reflect the same inherent problems which lead to less skeptical conclusions?

This post at least had some supporting evidence:
"I'm afraid it is the other way around. People who know science are in the minority."(supporting evidence suggested: "One look at a TV Guide will tell you."



It is difficult to also say that any of these claims are unsupported. Did anyone here go out to the proper population group and give a survey saying "check the following boxes on why you are attempting to use skepticism without actually being skeptical"? No.

Is that the only type of evidence that would support this claim? No.

Every day a person collects data in daily observation. This data is not necessarly collect imperically, but I don't think it would be a problem to do so. If everytime one encountered someone who had the condition they stated in this post (i.e."Because man's desire to believe he is right is much stronger than his desire to be right.") and made a counter system for it that would then be imperical data.

Just because you don't write it down or run a specific test does not mean that the observations are worthless, or that they can not be used to formulate a paticular hypothosis.

Should you be skeptical of these hypothosis? Yes. Do they include an error bar? Sure, everything does. Do you set that error bar by the observations you have previously made to form your hypothosis? Yes.

Do humans talk like that, especally on a forum board? No.

"It is my opinion that I feel with a 70% probability that the people mentioned in this population do actually indeed fear change."

The statement I chided you for was "The definition of a skeptic we use here requires one recognize unsupported claims for what they are."

1. Did you do a poll of the skeptics here to find out with 100% certianity this is the definition we all use? Could this even be done? Wouldn't your statement look more like "It is my opinion that I feel with a 96% probability that The definition of a skeptic we use here requires one recognize unsupported claims for what they are."??? Were you being a hypocrit? You decide.

2. Are these claims unsupported? As I said people make observations every moment of their life! Do you think that the people just wrote whatever the felt, and have had no previous encounters with people to make the skeptic form that opinioin? No. They formulated their opinions from observations. The claims are not unsupported. They may have a lower error bar, but the claims are not unsupported.

Edit: I have to get back to work. Go nuts spelling Nazi. ;)

[articulett]

Okay,

What is so hard about skepticism and science?

People make up religions (scientology) that attempt to appear "scientific" in nature to the casual reader....

People call themselves "9/11 Skeptics" when they don't have a skeptical thought in their head....


Why would these people want association with science and skepticism, but not actual skepticism?

Sometimes the ploy makes you rich--ask Depak Chopra and Tom (Scientology) Cruise and those Preachers trying to get "intelligent design" in the classroom.

[tsg]

I draw benefit from posting here and hearing other's ideas, knowledge and opinions. If one takes offense to a post and replies with retorts that miss the point altogether, then that person may lose the chance to learn from the other. Sometimes it's called for. Hypocrisy and irony are certainly targets to be pointed out. But for someone who only sees in my post that I called someone on being less than skeptical for mere semantics in how a sentence was worded, then the point was missed.

It wasn't semantics I was pointing out. I was pointing out how often people in general speak as if they are in a position of expertise on a matter when in reality, they are drawing a casual interpretation of the world. I deal with these "opinion/conclusions" all the time and continually must correct misinformation because of it.

For example, someone asks a nurse if hep B vaccine boosters are needed. Despite not having any real direct knowledge, the nurse will often give an answer. Answers come out of health care workers right and left without even considering they are not really experts on everything medical.

If the information is within the person's specialty, or they have recently reviewed the subject, they should answer. In that case not everyone will be giving perfect information, we all make mistakes or are not aware of some new information. Health education is the job of a many health care workers and to not say anything would make them totally ineffective. But often, without even thinking a health care worker will just spout out some careless opinion. It's human nature to do so as can be demonstrated by asking any group to give an opinion on matters they know a little, but not a lot about.

After having observed this time and again, and after having to correct the misinformation such a word of mouth system of communication causes, I have begun paying attention to the phenomenon. How often do we chime in with our unqualified opinion as if it is a qualified opinion? The question in this thread is a set up for such unqualified opinion. I wonder how many of us have either the expertise in psychology, or a very broad experience observing human behavior as to have a valid opinion here? Probably not many.

I'm not condemning anyone for their posts. I am merely bringing to their attention what I have observed as a frequent human behavior that perpetuates some of the misinformation which some of us are striving to decrease.

I understood what you were trying to say. I was trying to point out that you may be reading way too much into the responses. A question along the lines of the OP differs from your example of a nurse being asked a medical question she may not be qualified to answer in a couple of ways. First, it is clearly looking for individual opinions and speculation. Second, it isn't likely he is going to take any critical or possbily dangerous action based on the opinions given.

The requirement for evidence varies in proportion to the nature of the claim, as well as the "cost" of believing it. If you tell me it rained where you live yesterday, I'm not going to require you to support that claim with meteorlogical reports and independently verified measurements of rainfall for two very important reasons: 1) it's not that remarkable and 2) I don't really care. Whether it rained yesterday or not will not likely affect any decision I make today or in the foreseeable future. But if someone tells me a hepatitis B vaccine is or is not necessary for me, I'm going to scrutinize the evidence more closely.

My response to the question was based entirely on what I perceive in human behavior. That I haven't conducted extensive research to come to that conclusion is simply due to the fact that it isn't terribly important for me to know with any degree of confidence. That I didn't preface the response with "in my opinion" was due to the fact that I knew who my audience was and they weren't likely to perceive it as anything but my opinion. And I was trying to be, at least a little bit, funny.

I agree that people do have a tendency to offer uninformed opinions and that it is a real problem is some cases. This isn't one of them.

[skeptigirl]

...
It is difficult to also say that any of these claims are unsupported. Did anyone here go out to the proper population group and give a survey saying "check the following boxes on why you are attempting to use skepticism without actually being skeptical"? No. ....
...I was trying to point out that you may be reading way too much into the responses. A question along the lines of the OP differs from your example of a nurse being asked a medical question she may not be qualified to answer in a couple of ways. First, it is clearly looking for individual opinions and speculation. Second, it isn't likely he is going to take any critical or possbily dangerous action based on the opinions given....Like I was saying, any single comment above could be as you both describe. But as a collection of comments, there was a lot of opinion there. I think it was safe to assume some of that opinion was not well sourced.

I'm not concerned that anyone was chatting for the sake of chatting.

But why don't we ask people and resolve the issue. Who among those that posted opinion really thought about the basis for their comments and who among those that posted opinion merely felt they were knowledgeable enough to have something valid to say?

Again, I'm only trying to get people to think about opinions before giving them. I'm not trying to judge how valid any of the assessments were. I could have easily given my opinion on the matter as well. I have no clue if what I think is going on has the tiniest bit of validity. And had I not noticed how often medical professionals spout off medical advice which isn't correct, I would have posted my opinion instead of the comments I did post.

The first answer to my query:...My response to the question was based entirely on what I perceive in human behavior. That I haven't conducted extensive research to come to that conclusion is simply due to the fact that it isn't terribly important for me to know with any degree of confidence. That I didn't preface the response with "in my opinion" was due to the fact that I knew who my audience was and they weren't likely to perceive it as anything but my opinion. And I was trying to be, at least a little bit, funny.

I agree that people do have a tendency to offer uninformed opinions and that it is a real problem is some cases. This isn't one of them.

[tsg]

But why don't we ask people and resolve the issue.

For the most part, the people who are claiming to be doing science and skepticism without actually doing it are deliberately attempting to deceive. Intelligent Design is a classic case of this. They are only interested in finding data that supports their preconceived ideas and presenting it in an effort to convince others that the ideas have merit. They have been shown repeatedly that their evidence doesn't support their claims and they still present it. They know full well what they are doing and it is blindingly obvious to most people who do understand science. They are counting on people who don't understand science being confused. Any of the woo products out their being sold based on "quantum", "vibrations", "energy", etc. are engaged in the same deception. And it's pretty obvious. They know an appearance of scientific validity will give them credibility. Any attempts to inform them they are doing it wrong will fall on deaf ears. They know full well what they are doing.

Others, who aren't deliberately attempting to deceive, are still only looking to support their preconceived ideas but don't have the knowledge to evaluate the evidence correctly. The 9/11 CT'ers (for the most part, anyway) fall into this category. They honestly believe there is a vast conspiracy for global domination and cling to any shred which may support their ideas while ignoring the evidence that doesn't support it or actually refutes it. They are blinded by their belief. This is also obvious. Any attempts to inform them they are doing it wrong will fall on deaf ears. Anybody trying to convince them otherwise is either ignorant or in on it.

Who among those that posted opinion really thought about the basis for their comments and who among those that posted opinion merely felt they were knowledgeable enough to have something valid to say?

Having read the claims of those engaged in pseudoscience, and argued with them, I felt I was knowledgable enough to make the claim I did. I don't claim to understand the psychology of it, nor do I claim it is anything but my opinion based on my experience. My experience with humans in general, and especially those who engage in pseudoscience, leads me to believe that "man's desire to believe he is right is much stronger than his desire to be right." I could well be wrong. But I don't think I am.

As for whether or not anyone else had a basis for their comments I cannot say.

[skeptigirl]

I wasn't really talking about the non evidence based crowd, tsg. I was talking about people who normally use logic and evidence, or at least in the case of medical workers, should use logic and evidence. I was really addressing the way we spread misinformation inadvertently through our causal lines of communication and the human characteristic of enjoying offering an opinion even when it isn't evidence based.

[articulett]

I wasn't really talking about the non evidence based crowd, tsg. I was talking about people who normally use logic and evidence, or at least in the case of medical workers, should use logic and evidence. I was really addressing the way we spread misinformation inadvertently through our causal lines of communication and the human characteristic of enjoying offering an opinion even when it isn't evidence based.

I agree with this. I think people spout asanine opinions all the time. The ones who say "science is a faith" have a meme taught to them by creationists I suspect. Relgion is always trying to be on par with science. New agey stuff too--pseudo science blather. But the most insidious are the "I used to be an atheist..." --"or I was skeptical too, but THIS changed my mind..." Or "of course it's ridiculous that humans came from apes--if that's the case, why are there apes?" Ridicule the other so that your own uber ridiculous and hard to decipher woo won't be questioned. Former child star, Kirk Cameron excels in the latter "ridicule" technique.

When beliefs boil down to sound bites and faith and feeling and sloppy thinking--then you've got an easy market for all sorts of woo. (Of course, while claiming to be logicical and skeptical--they will call us arrogant, close minded, etc.)

Don't hate me because I'm skeptical. I didn't make up reality--I just shined a light in the darky scary corners.

[skeptigirl]

Feeling a bit guilty for derailing this thread, I'd like to put it back on track.

This is an excellent commentary (http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/5/1134) about the conscious strategy of using scientific terminology among other tactics in an attempt to counter the evidence science brings against specific religious beliefs, mainly Creation in this case. The principles apply in a greater perspective than Creationism and Christian beliefs and I think they are relevant to this thread.

If leaders use the appearance of science to get their foot in the door of the scientific community, it stands to reason, others of the same persuasion will follow suit. And that is exactly what has happened.

I think the ghost hunters have done the same on a more informal level. Believe in ghosts. Science claims there is no evidence, so you start using little devices like hypersensitive thermometers to show the presence of "entities". Trouble is, in these people's ignorance, they've missed an important step of first legitimizing that what you are measuring actually measures what you say it does. Temperature fluctuations and EMF levels are not evidence of ghosts just because you say they are. In these cases, people are just being fooled and fooling themselves.

[Walter Wayne]

Why would these people want association with science and skepticism, but not actual skepticism?The odd part is why we would be want to be associated with "skepticisms". Ever told anybody you are a skeptic? Drop into a conversation that you are skeptical of a certain theory and they assume you have thought on the matter bit. But mention that you are a skeptic and many think you are a pessimist or curmudgeon.

As for associating oneself with science ... when people do this it is an indicator that it is still perceived as an authority, which is a good thing. People always try to sound like they are using the latest and greatest authorities in their argument. Look at the way people use religion to argue for and against the same point. White supremacists quote it, as do egalitarians. Science has been used to support all manner of positions, and it will continue to be sited as support for all kinds of claims as long as people still perceive it as an authority.

[Yahzi]

Because real science is harder.
I have to disagree. I don't think it's actually that much harder.

I think the problem is, it doesn't give you the answer you want.

When people can't get the answer they want, no matter how hard they apply the method, pretty soon... they apply a different method.

Purty dang smart, when you think about it. At least, when your goal is an answer. If what you want is an effect, well, heck... that's what you hire scientists to produce.

:D

[The Painter]

Definition;

Webster's (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/skepticism)


skepticism
One entry found for skepticism.


Main Entry: skep•ti•cism
Pronunciation: 'skep-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)
synonym see UNCERTAINTY

It seems doubt is the main ingredient in skepticism. I like this part the best ” doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain”. True knowledge does not exist. Nice, I like that. A true skeptic would doubt the existence of God, and at the same time doubt the absence of God. That would make him/her an agnostic, not an atheist. Is it Evolution or Creation? Who knows? Not me. I lean toward evolution, but I could be wrong. Any of you who are so sure you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, then you are certain and have lost your doubt, and are no longer a skeptic. I suppose it’s possible that a “true skeptic” would believe in absolutely nothing.

[articulett]

I have to disagree. I don't think it's actually that much harder.

I think the problem is, it doesn't give you the answer you want.

When people can't get the answer they want, no matter how hard they apply the method, pretty soon... they apply a different method.

Purty dang smart, when you think about it. At least, when your goal is an answer. If what you want is an effect, well, heck... that's what you hire scientists to produce.

:D

I agree with this. I may plagiarize even. There is often a big difference between the truth one wants and the truth that is. Ones ability to comprehend the truth that is is often inversely correlated with how much they want some other "truth" to be factual;--and directly correlated with the level of insult and self righteous blather directed at those who present facts they do not like.

[Overman]

This is an excellent commentary (http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/5/1134) about the conscious strategy of using scientific terminology among other tactics in an attempt to counter the evidence science brings against specific religious beliefs, mainly Creation in this case.



Great link! Thanks!

[Hellbound]

Definition;

Webster's (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/skepticism)




It seems doubt is the main ingredient in skepticism. I like this part the best ” doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain”. True knowledge does not exist.

Nice definition, but you're running away with it a bit. True knowledge is not non-existent, just uncertain. Which fits well with the provisional nature of scientific achievement. We can newver be 100% certain, but that leaves all values from 99.9999...% to 0.00...01%.

Nice, I like that. A true skeptic would doubt the existence of God, and at the same time doubt the absence of God. That would make him/her an agnostic, not an atheist.

Depends on whether you use the words correctly or not. Many people today use Agmostics as meaning "I don't know" and Atheist as meaning "There is no God". I (and many skeptics) use the actual meanings of the words: Atheist simply does not believe in god(s) (not a positive belief that there are none, but a lack of belief that there are). Agnostic, on the other hand comes formt eh root "gnostic", meaning, essentially, certain knowledge, and the prefix "a-", meaning without. The Agnostic position states that the question is, essentially, unknowable. You could be an atheist agnostic, a deist agnostic, a Catholic agnostic, or any other combination.

Atheist is a statement of lack of belief, agnostic is a statement about the degree of knowledge possible.

Is it Evolution or Creation? Who knows? Not me. I lean toward evolution, but I could be wrong. Any of you who are so sure you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, then you are certain and have lost your doubt, and are no longer a skeptic. I suppose it’s possible that a “true skeptic” would believe in absolutely nothing.

Just to point out again, that the fact that certain knowledge is impossible does not rule out the possibilities between 100% and 0%.

There are dogmatic skeptics, yes, just as with any group. However, most woo-type beliefs rest on nothing but dogma. SKeptics place a high insistence on science and scientific inquiry precisely because of the provisional nature of science, and its track record at getting to something that is close enough to truth to be useful.

[skeptigirl]

Nice definition, but you're running away with it a bit. True knowledge is not non-existent, just uncertain. Which fits well with the provisional nature of scientific achievement. We can newver be 100% certain, but that leaves all values from 99.9999...% to 0.00...01%.Are you not 100% certain the Earth orbits the Sun? That crustal plates move and the result is earthquakes? That gravity exists whether we understand it completely or not?

There are many things with sufficient evidence to be 100% certain. Unless you include fantasy hypotheses like it's all a dream and we are in a Matrix like world. I prefer to leave fantasy hypotheses out of the picture.

Nice, I like that. A true skeptic would doubt the existence of God, and at the same time doubt the absence of God. That would make him/her an agnostic, not an atheist.Depends on whether you use the words correctly or not. Many people today use Agmostics as meaning "I don't know" and Atheist as meaning "There is no God". ...

Atheist is a statement of lack of belief, agnostic is a statement about the degree of knowledge possible.Clearly the meaning the users subscribe to is the relevant meaning. Words are for communicating. Definitions are useless unless the user of the word and the listener are both using those definitions.

So taking Painter's meaning rather than word choice, I completely disagree. I am a 'true' skeptic and have concluded based on overwhelming evidence, gods are purely a man-made construct. As such, I don't need proof gods do not exist for the same reason I don't need proof flying spaghetti monsters and invisible pink unicorns do not exist. There is no reason to add fantasy scenarios into the realm of possible hypotheses. They serve no purpose except as semantic arguments.

I think that is close to Huntsman's position. I have no issue with his semantical argument. It's a matter of preference.

[Hellbound]

Are you not 100% certain the Earth orbits the Sun? That crustal plates move and the result is earthquakes? That gravity exists whether we understand it completely or not?

There are many things with sufficient evidence to be 100% certain. Unless you include fantasy hypotheses like it's all a dream and we are in a Matrix like world. I prefer to leave fantasy hypotheses out of the picture.

Practically I'm 100% certain. Theorectically I'm 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999[etc.]% certain, which is functionally identical to 100% ;)

Clearly the meaning the users subscribe to is the relevant meaning. Words are for communicating. Definitions are useless unless the user of the word and the listener are both using those definitions.

So taking Painter's meaning rather than word choice, I completely disagree. I am a 'true' skeptic and have concluded based on overwhelming evidence, gods are purely a man-made construct. As such, I don't need proof gods do not exist for the same reason I don't need proof flying spaghetti monsters and invisible pink unicorns do not exist. There is no reason to add fantasy scenarios into the realm of possible hypotheses. They serve no purpose except as semantic arguments.

I think that is close to Huntsman's position. I have no issue with his semantical argument. It's a matter of preference.

Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement. Much of the atheist/agnostic/theist argument is semantics anyway, so I try to make these corrections when I can.

In any case, though, my point was that we have to understand that although knowledge cannot be certain, there are varying degrees of probability, for 99.999etc% to 0.000etc001%. And many of the "woos", trying to sell their ideas as replacements to scientifically verified and tested theories, are expecting us to quit our $250,000 a year job to partake in an annual $250,000 lottery. Sorry, but unless you can show me that I'll have the winning number, it ain't gonna happen.

[articulett]

Definition;

Webster's (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/skepticism)

It seems doubt is the main ingredient in skepticism. I like this part the best ” doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain”. True knowledge does not exist. Nice, I like that. A true skeptic would doubt the existence of God, and at the same time doubt the absence of God. That would make him/her an agnostic, not an atheist. Is it Evolution or Creation? Who knows? Not me. I lean toward evolution, but I could be wrong. Any of you who are so sure you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, then you are certain and have lost your doubt, and are no longer a skeptic. I suppose it’s possible that a “true skeptic” would believe in absolutely nothing.

This is an embarrassingly common human fallacy. Just because there are two choices (god or no god) doesn't mean they are equally likely. You can see this readily if you insert Zeus or Xenus into the equation as your preferred deity. One of my favorite logic problems points out this error nicely:
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/hall.shtml

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say number 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say number 3, which has a goat. He says to you, "Do you want to pick door number 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?

Most people think the odds ar 50/50 because two choices are left--and so they stick with their first "intuition". But the odds for the original door being correct is still 1/3 as it was in the beginning (the host can always turn over a door with a booby prize because there are two--it doesn't change your odds as to your first choice being correct--it does, however, eliminate the door with the booby prize from the equation). This means you will win the good prize 2/3 of the time by switching.

The ways human make errors in logic is a fascinating study--and a necessity for any magician or person who desires to exploit this behavior. It would serve you well to learn more about them--lest you be exploited by someone who understands how your thinking can go wrong.

Remember--2 options does not mean 50-50 probability. It might for heads or tells it is not the same when it comes to the existence of fairies. A women may or may not be pregnant, right? But the odds are greatly in the favor on non pregnant if you tested women at random--moreso if they are over 50. Learn the logic skills others here can teach you, and pass them on.

[Yahzi]

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, behind the others, goats.
Ah, the goat problem. Marylin Vos Savant (a Parade magazine columnist) got a ton of flack over that one. She answered it correctly, and people from janitors to math professors wrote volumes of mail to tell her how wrong she was. IIRC, only CalTech understood she was correct.

Now here's the big point: in one of her 3 columns about it, she encouraged people to test it for themselves. Nothing warms this old skeptic's heart like seeing someone resort to plain old empirical evidence that anyone can reproduce to prove their case.

I wrote a computer program to simulate the effect. That's how I knew she was right.

But for many, many people, checking the facts by doing the experiement was a distant second to writing an angry denuciation.

[The Painter]

This is an embarrassingly common human fallacy. Just because there are two choices (god or no god) doesn't mean they are equally likely. You can see this readily if you insert Zeus or Xenus into the equation as your preferred deity. One of my favorite logic problems points out this error nicely:
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/hall.shtml

Yeah, yeah, I know all about the Zeus thing. And a rose by any other name…… We should rename all the planets named after ancient gods. Hey, that’s just about all of them. How could they teach about the planets without naming gods? Is that a violation of the whole church and state thing?;)

Who said the doubt had to be equal? My doubt that there is a God is about 99.99999999%. My doubt that there isn’t a God is about .00000001%. It is still doubt and that makes me an agnostic.

The Monty Hall thing is old news. It’s even been of the TV show Numbers.


So taking Painter's meaning rather than word choice, I completely disagree. I am a 'true' skeptic and have concluded based on overwhelming evidence, gods are purely a man-made construct. As such, I don't need proof gods do not exist for the same reason I don't need proof flying spaghetti monsters and invisible pink unicorns do not exist. There is no reason to add fantasy scenarios into the realm of possible hypotheses. They serve no purpose except as semantic arguments.

Then you are not skeptical in your belief. You are 100% certain; you are a bona fide atheist.

[Almo]

Spelling Nazi's don't give a damn if they're liked or not, as long as you spell correctly, and realize that others might not want to "be like you".

You mean "Spelling Nazis." Incorrect usage of that apostrophe.

EDIT: Oops... hadn't read the whole thread when I posted... :blush:

EDIT2: http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html

[tsg]

I wrote a computer program to simulate the effect. That's how I knew she was right.

I had to do the same thing to convince me it was right. The funny part was I didn't actually have to run it. Once I got it into code it was terribly easy to why Monty showing you a goat after you make your choice doesn't change anything. Of course, I did run it just to be sure. I mean, I did spend the time to write it...

[articulett]

No true scotsman fallacy--define as you please and then lable accordingly. I consider myself both a skeptic and an atheists--as do many atheists and skeptics. There are many definitions: here's one I find more explanatory for those whom I know who refer to themselves as skeptics:

"They may have been open-minded to a belief
but when the evidence failed to support the belief, they rejected it.
There are already enough legitimate mysteries in the universe for which
evidence provides scientists fodder for their research, that to take the
time to consider "unseen" or "unknown" mysteries is not always
practical. When the non-skeptic says, "you're just closed-minded to the
unknown forces of the universe," the skeptic responds: "We're still
trying to understand the known forces of the universe."

http://www.skepticfiles.org/skep2/skeptics.htm

Not everything is of equal concern to any given skeptic. We feel safe in not having to speculate whether the earth is truly a spheroid. And we feel it would be a waste of time and not particularly illuminating to search for dieties--in fact, it is more likely that searching for dieties will lead to confirmation bias for dieties that do not exist--as this is a long known human fallacy-- "Thor, we killed Zep for the sun god and now look how good our crops are doing--just think how good our crops will do if we kill Zep's kids!"

I prefer to think of a skeptic as a person who wants evidence behind his/her strongest beliefs--someone who would rather not know something then believe a lie--someone who desires to believe that something doesn't exist, until evidence has amassed to show that it does. But semantic games aren't really useful to me. They tend to be employed by "mystics" and the like, and it just feels smarmy and misleading to me.

[skeptigirl]

Just to take that three door thing a step further...because I have an issue with it, computer program or not. What were the odds the door you did not choose had of being correct before the third door was eliminated? Did it not also have a 1 in 3 chance of being correct?

I understand and accept the fact the first door you chose had a 1 in 3 chance and the second choice had a one in 2 chance. I understand by eliminating one of the three doors you impact the odds in some way because you eliminated a specific and not a random door.

The door you chose had a 1 in 3 chance of being correct, however, by the same inference the door you did not choose also had a 1 in 3 chance of being correct. How does the fact you chose a door vs not choosing a door change the probability when both remaining doors had an equal 1 in 3 chance of being correct before the third door was eliminated?

[articulett]

Just to take that three door thing a step further...because I have an issue with it, computer program or not. What were the odds the door you did not choose had of being correct before the third door was eliminated? Did it not also have a 1 in 3 chance of being correct?

I understand and accept the fact the first door you chose had a 1 in 3 chance and the second choice had a one in 2 chance. I understand by eliminating one of the three doors you impact the odds in some way because you eliminated a specific and not a random door.

The door you chose had a 1 in 3 chance of being correct, however, by the same inference the door you did not choose also had a 1 in 3 chance of being correct. How does the fact you chose a door vs not choosing a door change the probability when both remaining doors had an equal 1 in 3 chance of being correct before the third door was eliminated?


You actually never have a 1 in 2 chance. You have a 1/3 chance for the first door--no chance for the revealed door--which leaves 2/3 for the last door. Showing you a door doesn't change your odds (because the host can always open a door with a booby prize, right?)--It does give you information about which door does not have the car--So although only one of 2 have the car--it is more likely to be the one you didn't choose. The 1 in 2 is an illusion of sorts...in would be like thinking that getting 5 heads in a row has anything to do with the 6th throw. Each throw has a 50-50 chance no matter what comes before--but getting 6 heads in a row is far more unlikely from the outset.

There is this great book I ordered from some skeptic site called Irrationality- it has a lot of these similar logic fallacies, and I thought it was great. If my explanation doesn't work, you can find it on the web. I find it wild that people would so strongly disagree and fight it--to me, it seems simple--but it does remind me of some people here who seem to be missing something in the logic department-- they just can't seem to get something, and I don't know if it's because they don't want to--or it's simply beyond them. Will you let me know if I explained it well. I'm teaching teenagers, and I want them to learn some of the ways humans fool themselves. The key to understanding this problem is to remember--the odds of the first door do not change even after they show the second door--because the host will always have a door to open. The thing that changes is this: you know the shown door (which had a 1/3 chance before--has no chance of being the car). You still have your 1/3 chance--that leaves the second door with 2/3 chance. There never was a 50-50 chance of anything.

[tsg]

Just to take that three door thing a step further...because I have an issue with it, computer program or not. What were the odds the door you did not choose had of being correct before the third door was eliminated? Did it not also have a 1 in 3 chance of being correct?

I understand and accept the fact the first door you chose had a 1 in 3 chance and the second choice had a one in 2 chance. I understand by eliminating one of the three doors you impact the odds in some way because you eliminated a specific and not a random door.

The door you chose had a 1 in 3 chance of being correct, however, by the same inference the door you did not choose also had a 1 in 3 chance of being correct. How does the fact you chose a door vs not choosing a door change the probability when both remaining doors had an equal 1 in 3 chance of being correct before the third door was eliminated?


If you haven't already, take a look here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_hall_problem.

[skeptigirl]

If you haven't already, take a look here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_hall_problem.I'll soak this up and get back. I know all these experts must be seeing something I am not but the odds of the unpicked door are blocking my view.

[tsg]

I'll soak this up and get back. I know all these experts must be seeing something I am not but the odds of the unpicked door are blocking my view.

There's (yet another) discussion going on here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59484).

[articulett]

I'll soak this up and get back. I know all these experts must be seeing something I am not but the odds of the unpicked door are blocking my view.

Yes--it's all there at the other thread--and another good problem with coins. I thought of another way to explain it. And I'm eager to have you understand it--because it's worthwhile knowledge. After you pick a door--there is a 2/3 chance that the car is behind one of the other 2 doors, right? And when the host removes a door that doesn't have the car--that 2/3 is left for the remaining door. You are never really picking from 2 things. You're always picking from 3 things--but one of those things gets eliminated.

[Yahzi]

I'll soak this up and get back. I know all these experts must be seeing something I am not but the odds of the unpicked door are blocking my view.
Think of it this way:

Suppose there are a million doors. You pick one, and the host opens every other door except yours and one more. Would you switch then?

Your first choice was made when you had 1 chance in a million. Now you can choose a second door where the chance is 1 million-1.

Does that help? (Don't feel bad about not getting it - plenty of bigshot PHDs didn't get it for ages, either. :D )

[tsg]

Think of it this way:

Suppose there are a million doors. You pick one, and the host opens every other door except yours and one more. Would you switch then?

Your first choice was made when you had 1 chance in a million. Now you can choose a second door where the chance is 1 million-1.

Does that help? (Don't feel bad about not getting it - plenty of bigshot PHDs didn't get it for ages, either. :D )

I remember not understanding this. The million doors thing didn't make it any clearer for me because it was still just two doors at the end. The real key to understanding it is the realization that Monty showing you a goat (given the standard rules) doesn't tell you anything about whether or not you picked the right door. It only tells you which of the remaining doors the car can't be behind. The other thing that makes it difficult to understand is that if Monty opens one of the remaining doors at random instead of purposely revealing a goat, your odds of having picked the right door do go to 1/2.

It's all about what information he is giving you that you didn't have before he opened the door.

[articulett]

Think of it this way:

Suppose there are a million doors. You pick one, and the host opens every other door except yours and one more. Would you switch then?

Your first choice was made when you had 1 chance in a million. Now you can choose a second door where the chance is 1 million-1.

Does that help? (Don't feel bad about not getting it - plenty of bigshot PHDs didn't get it for ages, either. :D )

I like this explanation. I think it can help. The point is, that your odds never change as to the first door. (unless the hosts opens a door with the car--in which case, you suddenly know you have a goat.)

The one about the coins on the other thread is really good too. It reminds me of genetics and "punnet squares".

[skeptigirl]

I am getting inklings of the difference in that of the two doors left, the odds changed for those two doors.

[hammegk]

Assuming Monty never opens the prize door, another way to look at the odds once Monty opens the loosing door:

Your door, p=1/3 will never change

For the unopened door, p=2/3 (now) x 1/3 (original chance unchanged) = 2/9

For 100 doors your door remains at 0.01, changing gives 99/100 x 1/100 = 0.0098

The odds decrease to take into account the chance you switch from winner to looser.

[articulett]

I am getting inklings of the difference in that of the two doors left, the odds changed for those two doors.

Nope--just for the door not shown. From the beginning you had a 1/3 chance of having chosen the car...and, as hammegk noted, there was a 2/3 chance the the car was behind one of the other doors. (which means really that 1 door had 2/3 of a chance and the other door had no chance--the host shows you the door that had no chance of the remaining two left...it is only in the less likely scenario where you have actually chosen the car, that would give him the option of opening either remaining door...most of the time (2/3), he's left with no choice as to which door to open--he is forced to open the one without the car.

Out of the 3 possibilities--the door you choice has 1/2 chance...the door the host shows has no chance--and that leaves 2/3 chance for the 2nd door being the one with the car.

You are never picking from 2 equal choices--

[skeptigirl]

Art, you misinterpreted which '2 doors left' I meant. I meant the two doors left after one is chosen, not the 2 doors left after one is eliminated.

[articulett]

Art, you misinterpreted which '2 doors left' I meant. I meant the two doors left after one is chosen, not the 2 doors left after one is eliminated.

I'm sorry--now, I see that...and I also wrote 1/2 instead of 1/3. So you do understand it now, right? I am glad for the people who took the time to explain these things to me...and I want to be able to give others the tools for understanding such errors in thinking. I know there is tons on the web about this, but I want to once again recommend this book called Irrationality by the late Stuart Sutherland--I think I read about it in the back of a Skeptic or Skeptical Inquirer--but he is very readable, and, like James Randi, patient at showing his reader how people fool themselves...and how easy it is to avoid the most common pitfalls in human thinking. To me, they are unsung heroes in the world of reason (as is Marilyn Vos Savant)--and the internet is a great way to spread both good information and woo. I am glad to have some of the tools to know the difference.

[articulett]

I know it's off topic for this thread...but here is a sample from the book mentioned above.

You are told there are three cards--one of which has a white face on both sides, one of which has a red face on both sides, and one of which is red on one side and white on the other. You are shown one card that is face up showing a red side--what are the odds that the other side also red. Most people (including both me and the author originally) would say 1/2--because it's either the card with red on both sides or the red and white card. We see 2 choices and we think 50-50. But that is not correct...

There are 3 red sides--and 2 out of those three red sides have a red on the other side--so your actual odds are 2/3. It's similar to the problem above and the coin problem. You could be seeing the "front" of the "all red" card or the "back" of the "all red" card or the red side of the red and white card.

The book is really interesting for anyone interested in how they might be fooling themselves. I am glad to know where I was "thinking" wrong...and glad to now know the right answer and why. Plus, I can't tell you how useful it was to learn that the people most often assured of the rightness can be the most wrong of all. Understanding the facts and basic human misunderstandings is empowering.

[articulett]

I remember not understanding this. The million doors thing didn't make it any clearer for me because it was still just two doors at the end. The real key to understanding it is the realization that Monty showing you a goat (given the standard rules) doesn't tell you anything about whether or not you picked the right door. It only tells you which of the remaining doors the car can't be behind. The other thing that makes it difficult to understand is that if Monty opens one of the remaining doors at random instead of purposely revealing a goat, your odds of having picked the right door do go to 1/2.

It's all about what information he is giving you that you didn't have before he opened the door.

But the million doors shows that only two are left--it's not like they'd be right next to eachother--it's clear that the door that wasn't opened has a much better chance then your first choice, right? Sure...you are left with 2--but one is the one you picked and one is the door that 357,098th from the end--hmmmmm which could it be?

[skeptigirl]

I get it now and posted the logic explanation in the other thread. I know everyone else has as well, it's just that the math is nice, computer program is evidence, but I needed the logic to make sense to me.

The odds of the unselected door is the only thing that changes. The host's actions increases the odds of the unselected door...very simple just takes a bit of logic.

[hammegk]

The host's actions increases the odds of the unselected door...


You are never picking from 2 equal choices--

So you disagree with Bayes? Or is the following wrong wrong wrong?

As I said: "Assuming Monty never opens the prize door, another way to look at the odds once Monty opens the losing door:

Your door, p=1/3 will never change

For the unopened door, p=2/3 (now) x 1/3 (original chance unchanged) = 2/9

For 100 doors your door remains at 0.01, changing gives 99/100 x 1/100 = 0.0098

The odds decrease to take into account the chance you switch from winner to loser."

[articulett]

So you disagree with Bayes? Or is the following wrong wrong wrong?

As I said: "Assuming Monty never opens the prize door, another way to look at the odds once Monty opens the losing door:

Your door, p=1/3 will never change

For the unopened door, p=2/3 (now) x 1/3 (original chance unchanged) = 2/9

For 100 doors your door remains at 0.01, changing gives 99/100 x 1/100 = 0.0098

The odds decrease to take into account the chance you switch from winner to loser."

I was agreeing with you. You just word things in ways that make it difficult for people to understand...in fact, I only think I was agreeing with you...I have trouble understanding what you are saying. And I am well schooled in Bayesian analysis, so it's not that--it's you. Do you notice that other people seem to have trouble grasping what you are saying even though they are relatively intelligent people? --Or do you just tell yourself that this is because you are so deep and intelligent that no one is at your level?

[skeptigirl]

I can't follow your train of thought, hamme. The reason I posted my view of the problem when there were already good explanations is because my train of thought made sense to me.

I have to understand what the concept is. Someone can show the formula and the math isn't hard, but math doesn't always translate easily into the logic of what is happening. It is illogical that 2 doors which had an equal chance of being correct now have an unequal chance of being correct because the host opened the third door. Someone in the other thread even said they had to make a computer model and test it to believe it. And I wondered why opening the 3rd door wouldn't affect the 1st chosen door equally with the unchosen door.

But then I saw the answer. When the host eliminates one of the two remaining doors, it affects the odds of the unopened door but not the odds of the opened door. The host is only choosing between the 2 remaining doors. At the time the host eliminates a door, the first door chosen is not in play so to speak. No computer program or math formula needed, just a logical explanation that made sense.

[articulett]

I can't follow your train of thought, hamme. The reason I posted my view of the problem when there were already good explanations is because my train of thought made sense to me.

I have to understand what the concept is. Someone can show the formula and the math isn't hard, but math doesn't always translate easily into the logic of what is happening. It is illogical that 2 doors which had an equal chance of being correct now have an unequal chance of being correct because the host opened the third door. Someone in the other thread even said they had to make a computer model and test it to believe it. And I wondered why opening the 3rd door wouldn't affect the 1st chosen door equally with the unchosen door.

But then I saw the answer. When the host eliminates one of the two remaining doors, it affects the odds of the unopened door but not the odds of the opened door. The host is only choosing between the 2 remaining doors. At the time the host eliminates a door, the first door chosen is not in play so to speak. No computer program or math formula needed, just a logical explanation that made sense.

I'm that way too...I need to "see it" in my head. (and the host is only choosing between two doors if you have chosen the car...otherwise he's forced to open a particular door as there is only one that has the goat if you have chosen a goat as well.)