www.psychics.co.uk

[Jack 007]

Hello. New to this, so bear with me! :)

Saw this on the psychics.co.uk forums (FWIW I was looking for stuff on Bodmin Gaol, honest!).

<quote>Can you prove that you are a skeptic? (Based upon an article on Wilkipedia)


If the skeptic applied the same rules to themselves and makes absolute certainty the requirement for knowledge, then you could reply that this observation should be applied to skepticism itself.

Is skepticism itself entirely beyond doubt? Isn't it possible to raise various kinds of objection to skepticism? So it would appear; but then no one can know that skepticism is true. So then the skeptic can't know that skepticism is true. But this is actually a bit of a weak reply, because it doesn't really refute skepticism. The skeptic, after all, may be perfectly happy to admit that no one knows that skepticism is true. The skeptic might rest content saying that skepticism is very probably true. That's not the kind of claim that most non-skeptics will be happy to allow.

I think that the above argument put the case very well as to why we can never really have the empirical proofs required to take on things like the James Randi million dollar challenge. What criteria do you think should be used to prove that psychic and mediumistic claims have validity? Perhaps you can cite a case that proves our skills beyond reasonable doubt? Tell us your views in this thread. </quote>

Seems a pretty weak argument to me (not that I fully understand it!)

I notice that there have been no replies to the "perhaps you can cite a case" part!

I wonder what the users of this forum think of this get-out excuse?

[Ririon]

Welcome!

We wouldn't think much of this argument. No "absolute certainty" is required. Just one little demonstration. OK, two. :)

[Jon.]

Words like "skepticism is true" just don't work. Skepticism is not a true/false construct. It is an attitude, a way of approaching claims. So the whole quote in the OP is off base, IMO.

[Jack 007]

Hi Ririon!

I had to stop browsing the psychics.co.uk forums in the end as I would've ended up replying to every post I saw!

One or 2 tests, under mutually agreed conditions? How hard can that be? :D As a scientist, it's pretty much what I do every single day of my working life!!!

Cheers!
:)

[Jack 007]

Words like "skepticism is true" just don't work.

Yeah, that bit made my head hurt!

ps Hi!
:)

[The Atheist]

This old chestnut raises its hairy head all the time. Usually used by christians, it requires sceptics or atheists to have accumulated 100% of all possible knowledge before denying anything else is possible.

No point trying to argue with that level of illogic.

[Ririon]

...
As a scientist, it's pretty much what I do every single day of my working life!!!
...
And it's pretty much what I do every night. (And on weekends.) :)

[jmercer]

Simple enough answer; skepticism is a methodology, related to (but not the same as) the scientific method.

Methodologies are processes, and the qualifiers "True" or "False" have no meaning when applied to them.

(Qualitative qualifers - such as "Poor", "Excellent", "Successful" or "Failing" can be applied, however.) :)

[Hellbound]

Well, to begin with, the very first sentence of that sets up a Strawman upon which the entire argument is based.

Skepticism does not require "absolute knowledge" in any form or fashion. Skepticism requires that a claim be shown logically consistent, with regards to the state of current knowledge and, more importantly, the evidence. And evidence trumps in this case, with strong evidence being an argument for a change required in the current state of knowledge. As others have stated, skepticism is not something that can be true or false, it's a methodology. One can talk about it being efficient/inefficient, useful/non-useful, valid/invalid, and so forth, but true and false are meaningless in this context.

However, the thing these statements miss is that skepticism is applied (ideally) unilaterally, to both paranormal and normal claims. It doesn't give a "free pass" to science, or to already gained knowledge, or to theories that already exist. ALL cases require eveidence, and that evidence should support the theory, and the theory should explain new evidence. The entire idea of "absolute knowledge" is a strawman created to give an easy target.