The Downside Of Skepticism

[thisninjascrazy]

Long-time reader, first time poster... Nice to meet y'all!

Like most of you, I'm a skeptic, but at times it feels like a monumental headache (and a lot of research). While kooky conspiracy theorists are free to pull their flights of fancy out of the hat without the burden of proof, skeptics have the laborious task of fact-checking and compiling evidence that usually falls on deaf ears. Sometimes it feels like a thankless task.

I'll give you an example. Ever since the age of five, I've been fascinated with Ancient Egypt. I've read countless books, watched many documentaries and wait with baited breath for a movie set in Ancient Egypt with some degree of historical accuracy. However, when I mention my love of antiquity to others, a lot of times I have to put up with ridiculous "Aliens built the pyramiads" theories.

I'm given the thankless task of trying to explain - in laymen's terms - that the Pyramiads were in fact built by humans. It requires little thought for them to pull out the extraterrestrial card with no burden of proof, yet I have to explain little details, such as...

- A virtually unlimited domestic labour source (Conscripted workers).
- Locally quarried limestone.
- The 'honour' of building a monument to Pharaoh (High morale).
- A high calorie diet of fatty breads and low-strength beer to give the workers sufficent energy.
- The fact that the Pyramiads took decades to build.

...and so on and so forth. And to top it off, I have to phrase it politely to avoid coming off as an egotistical know-it-all. If that fails to convince them (and sometimes it does), I have to resort to such quips as...

- "If the Pyramiads were such 'advanced alien technology', why did they end up getting looted?"
- "If the Egyptians were in possession of alien technology, why didn't they concieve of the wheel (Which might have come in handy during the Second Intermediate Period when they were briefly conquered by the Hyksos, who possessed Chariots and composite bows)?"

(Author's Note: I find it odd that I've never met anybody who claims that the Roman Colliseum (sp?) and the Aquaeducts and other 'European' feats of Architecture (Stonehenge notwithstanding) were built by extraterrestrials, but I'm sure Richard Pryor or Chris Rock could articulate this sentence better than I'm doing.)

...and whatnot. I guess if I had a question, it would be this. Does anybody else feel that being a skeptic is generally a thankless task? Deep down, very few people like being proved wrong. I have a brother who espouses woo-woo ideas, such as aliens building the pyramiads and 9/11 conspiracies (after seeing 'Loose Change' on YouTube, no less). I'm constantly having to 'debunk' his flights of fancy and to be honest, it's just a thankless task most of the time.

Anyway, that's my quick introduction, a little of my situation and a half-hearted attempt at starting a thread. But while I'm here, may I say it's nice to take the plunge and join the forum. It's nice to know there are other rational thinkers out there and I look forward to 'jawing' with y'all.

[Slimething]

Long-time reader, first time poster... Nice to meet y'all!

Welcome to the forum, [he who needs to simplify sig]!

Yup, being a skeptic sucks but, if you're a true skeptic, ya gotta do it. Only cure is a few headlong pratfalls or a prefrontal lobotomy but then you wind up Republican and that sucks even worse. :)

[sinclairmcevoy]

Welcome, and thank you. See? It's not thankless after all. You can thank yourself for at least trying to point someone in the right direction.

[Axiom_Blade]

It requires little thought for them to pull out the extraterrestrial card with no burden of proof, yet I have to explain little details, such as...


"The burden of proof lies on the claimant."

Tell them to show you the proof. If the proof sucks, tell them why.
I find that's a bit easier, sometimes.

[buzz lightyear]

Well thisninjacrazy, you may as well put a slug in the old brain box now.
The life journey of a skeptic is just eat, reproduce and die. No cosmic journey, no evolution of the soul (you dont have one) no higher purpose for this earthly existance. So get off the treadmill while you can still walk without a stick.

Welcome to the forum.

[thisninjascrazy]

Well thisninjacrazy, you may as well put a slug in the old brain box now.
The life journey of a skeptic is just eat, reproduce and die. No cosmic journey, no evolution of the soul (you dont have one) no higher purpose for this earthly existance. So get off the treadmill while you can still walk without a stick.

Welcome to the forum.

Sounds like a hell of a party... Who's got the beer? :)

[l0rca]

I find it much easier to master logic and understand philosophy and science when it comes to evidence. Usually I just ask for evidence. If they're unable to present evidence, I usually ask them why they're willing to believe without evidence. I can usually get most people to see, or at least state, that they believe what they want. Then I usually tell them that I do not believe what I want, but I believe what my best judgement, and my ability to research leads me to, then I suggest to them that approach.

Nobody follows my suggestions, but it's a five minute conversation that trumps even the doctors at my work.

[Axiom_Blade]

No cosmic journey

Sure there is!
It's just that most of the ways to get to it are illegal.

[JoeTheJuggler]

at times it feels like a monumental headache (and a lot of research).

I forget where I read it (maybe Shermer), but someone counted up how long it takes to make claims vs. even a perfunctory debunking in the context of a public debate. It was something like half a minute to 5 minutes IIRC. And one strategy of the claimants is to make LOTS of bad arguments. If you don't have time enough to refute each and every one of them, it seems (to an audience for instance) that the others are valid.

Usually those making claims or arguments supporting claims have so many embedded wrong assumptions (or fallacious reasoning), that it takes time to unpack and explain where the thinking is screwed up.

Consider all these designs for perpetual motion machines: it takes way longer to analyze the forces and show that it can't work than it does to make a presentation claiming that it will work. (In fact, often the difference is that the analysis claiming that it will work is simply incomplete or a subset of the debunking argument.)

[Mojo]

Well thisninjacrazy, you may as well put a slug in the old brain box now.
The life journey of a skeptic is just eat, reproduce and die. No cosmic journey, no evolution of the soul (you dont have one) no higher purpose for this earthly existance. So get off the treadmill while you can still walk without a stick. Of course, it's the same for non-skeptics. There's only one way off the treadmill, and I'm sure Buzz isn't suggesting it.

[Cuddles]

But aliens did build the pyramids. Are you implying Stargate wasn't a documentary?

[TobiasTheViking]

I have yet to find a downside to being a skeptic. :D

[kellyb]

Does anybody else feel that being a skeptic is generally a thankless task? Deep down, very few people like being proved wrong. I have a brother who espouses woo-woo ideas, such as aliens building the pyramiads and 9/11 conspiracies (after seeing 'Loose Change' on YouTube, no less). I'm constantly having to 'debunk' his flights of fancy and to be honest, it's just a thankless task most of the time.

Well, when it comes to internet boards, I think you just have to be patient. If you post on "believer forums", for every hard-core believer there, there are 2 "fence sitters" lurking. And these "big questions"...even ones that seem silly, like "Did aliens really build the pyramids?" actually mean a lot to people. All of those weird questions become a fundamental part of how people view reality. It might take a year or two, but when you see people drifting over to the skeptical side over time, it's really very gratifying. But for the lurking fence sitters, it sometimes just takes some time for them to realise that "the skeptics" tend to be correct. But once people come to terms with the necessity of evidence, and the art of being ruthlessly intellectually honest...it just takes off after that. And it does happen, and it's really very interesting to watch. :)

[Ysidro]

Skepticism can't be a thankless task. It's not a task at all. It's a way of looking at things critically.

Still sucks sometimes, but that's life.

I never thought about pointing out how no one claims Roman architecture was alien designed. Hmmm, come to think of it wouldn't the Colliseum be a more complex structure than a pyramid too?

[Cello Man]

..."If the Pyramiads were such 'advanced alien technology', why did they end up getting looted?"

- "If the Egyptians were in possession of alien technology, why didn't they concieve of the wheel (Which might have come in handy during the Second Intermediate Period when they were briefly conquered by the Hyksos, who possessed Chariots and composite bows)?"...

Ha! I need to remember those quips for future reference! :D

If I was an ancient Egyptian pharoah in possession of alien technology, I'd make damn sure I had several "Obelisks of Light" like the Brotherhood of NOD in the Command & Conquer games. I'd surround my pyramids with them, and watch them vaporize would-be tomb robbers. Good times.

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

[patrick767]

thisninjascrazy, I know how you feel, and people absolutely hate to be told they are wrong. Even if I try to be very diplomatic about it, if I open my mouth to refute someone's absurd claims, I can tell that most people are visibly annoyed by my disagreement with them and have a lower opinion of me as a result. It seems like often to keep the peace and perhaps be thought of as "likeable", we have to bite our tongues. I hate that.

I forget where I read it (maybe Shermer), but someone counted up how long it takes to make claims vs. even a perfunctory debunking in the context of a public debate. It was something like half a minute to 5 minutes IIRC. And one strategy of the claimants is to make LOTS of bad arguments. If you don't have time enough to refute each and every one of them, it seems (to an audience for instance) that the others are valid.


Absolutely. This method is one commonly used in competitive debates. Talk quickly and bury your opponent in claims. Apparently it's effective enough to often fool the debate judges, who are typically laymen when it comes to the topic being debated.

[whiteyonthemoon]

History of the downside of being a skeptic:
Early 17th century: Skeptical of heliocentrism.
Mid 18th century: Skeptical of Germ theory of disease.
19th century: Skeptical of irrational numbers.
Early 20th century: Skeptical of special relativity.
Early 20th century: Skeptical of continental drift.
Mid 20th century: Skeptical that DNA was the molecule of genes.
Currently: Who knows?
I'm Skeptical that skepticism, Occam's razor, the scientific method, etc, are Infallible.

[thisninjascrazy]

On the plus side, if I've learnt anything from George Carlin and David Cross (and believe me, I've been paying attention), it's that oftentimes there's nothing more hilarious than pointing out logical fallacies, if you've got a little choice wordplay to back it up...

(Insert George Carlin's "Invisible Man in the Sky" (Who's all powerful, terrible with money, has a list of ten things he does not want you do and so on) here)

[Tumblehome]

Like most of you, I'm a skeptic, but at times it feels like a monumental headache (and a lot of research). While kooky conspiracy theorists are free to pull their flights of fancy out of the hat without the burden of proof, skeptics have the laborious task of fact-checking and compiling evidence that usually falls on deaf ears. Sometimes it feels like a thankless task.


Something that occurred to me after reading your post...Why not turn the tables on them and beat them with their own sticks, like so:

"Why do you hate humans so much that you won't give them credit for an engineering feat like the pyramids? Do you also deny that humans built the Great Wall of China? Circumnavigated the earth 500 years ago with simple navigational tools? Went from flying the first rickety airplane to travelling to the moon and back in 65 years? Developed the polio vaccine? Have seen almost to the edge of this unthinkably huge Universe and pegged its age at 13.7 billion years without venturing beyond our tiny speck of dust? Do you really hate humans that much????"

Well, it might work. Then again... :rolleyes:

[rjh01]

Not only did aliens build all of the ancient structures, the built every large modern one too. Star trek is a documentary (Proof at least exists for that one - see Galaxy Quest)

In other words out woo the woos. If they point out how stupid your arguments are point out that theirs are just as bad.

[joesixpack]

...I never thought about pointing out how no one claims Roman architecture was alien designed. Hmmm, come to think of it wouldn't the Colliseum be a more complex structure than a pyramid too?


That's been fundamental to my response to those who believe that extra-terrestrials built the pyramids. I say, "You have no problem believing that the Greeks and Romans built the Accropolis and the Colosium, or that the people in Europe were able to build Notre Dame and the St Peters Basillica, but when it comes to Machu Pichu, Easter Island,and the Pyramids, suddenly humans need help from flying saucers. Sounds a bit racist to me. Africans and pre-colombian americans aren't as smart as the Europeans?"

[John Jackson]

History of the downside of being a skeptic:
Early 17th century: Skeptical of heliocentrism.
Mid 18th century: Skeptical of Germ theory of disease.
19th century: Skeptical of irrational numbers.
Early 20th century: Skeptical of special relativity.
Early 20th century: Skeptical of continental drift.
Mid 20th century: Skeptical that DNA was the molecule of genes.
Currently: Who knows?
I'm Skeptical that skepticism, Occam's razor, the scientific method, etc, are Infallible.


You're making a fallacy of equivocation. Being sceptical of something does not make that person a Skeptic. They're two different things.

These 'Skeptics thought the earth was flat' type arguments are about as naíve as they come.

[BPScooter]

I must admit that I don't regularly run into people flat-out woo. There is one friend, lost her husband to drugs/mental state/suicide and it is certainly a bad thing. I started a little thread here about that. She was, and still is, thinking that a psychic gave her some info from beyond. Now the psychic has told her that she might have some sort of gift, herself. In the interest of good civics, I just do bite my tongue since I only see this woman at crowded social gatherings. If and when given the chance, I will ask a diplomatic yet pointed question about the sources and nature of her beliefs. Doing that without being perceived as an ass is the moment I'm waiting for. If the afterlife people are involved, it will take me a while to get to the point where a plain human conversation will be the right thing. In this social circle, nobody knows or cares much about my beliefs (except Mrs. Scooter) so it really isn't like a one-up deal--"oohh... Ms. Psychic said That... what does El Skeptico Dork say...)

[SusanB-M1]

thisninjascrazy

I never thought of scepticism having a downside, but you are right of course as it will be a very long time before superstition is replaced by truth, although progress must surely accelerate with the internet.
I wonder if there is a book listing the anti-woo arguments in this thread. I'd certainly buy a copy. A mini, pocket-size one would be very useful!

[PenguinWarrior]

History of the downside of being a skeptic:
Early 17th century: Skeptical of heliocentrism.
Mid 18th century: Skeptical of Germ theory of disease.
19th century: Skeptical of irrational numbers.
Early 20th century: Skeptical of special relativity.
Early 20th century: Skeptical of continental drift.
Mid 20th century: Skeptical that DNA was the molecule of genes.
Currently: Who knows?
I'm Skeptical that skepticism, Occam's razor, the scientific method, etc, are Infallible.

No-one says they are. They are however, the best we've got.

I find it strange that you've chosen a group of claims that were proven via the scientific method (well, apart from irrational numbers, which are a mathematical concept) to show that the scientific method doesn't work. It was right to treat all of them skeptically initially, just as it is to do so to all claims, and it was also right that when evidence showed up in sufficiently convincing amounts, the scientific orthodoxy was changed. If you are referring to people who held doubt AFTER sufficient evidence was unearthed, then you are not referring to skeptics as the word is generally used at these forums, you are merely referring to "doubters". Sure, they may call themselves skeptics, but they are not acting skeptically (see Global Warming deniers or anti-evolutionists for modern day examples of people who refuse to be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence).

Furthermore, I have to wonder, if we do not evaluate evidence in a scientific/skeptical/empirical way, how the heck do we evaluate evidence? It is a common tactic of believers in debate to claim something along the lines of "Science doesn't know everything/Skeptics have been wrong in the past/You can't be SURE of what you're saying" and whilst all those statements are technically true (or thereabouts) they are useless in determining how one should formulate views on empirical issues. Given that the world lacks certainty, and that we still want to work out as best we can how it works, then we have to have some way of testing ideas and rejecting those that don't seem to work. This is what science is about, and critical thinking is a part of that. If we don't reject ideas that are unevidenced, how DO we determine between claims that are more or less likely to be true? Religious types would say perhaps that faith is an alterntative system, but the fact is that, even in a best case scenario, more than half of the World's population who use faith have reached the wrong conclusion, so it seems an unlikely claim that it is a more accurate system than science (and that's before we examine the fact that the best case percentage of people who've been right about the world based on religious faith decreases as we move back in time and consider other (now dead or near dead) religions, that human psychology can be studied to explain faith in a non supernatural way, that for an accurate tool in determining the truth its amazing how often you come to the same conclusion as your parents whilst disagreeing with others who, remarkably, happen to believe the same as THEIR parents etc). So the question remained unanswered - why should a person who wants the best shot of knowing the truth reject critical thinking, and in that case, what replaces it?

The fact is, even if the believers in ghosts, psychics and so on are right, they were still wrong to accept these claims as true on the grounds that they did (unless there are some out there who have found convincing evidence and have been unwilling or unable to share that with the World of course, but I'm speaking generally. Besides, I strongly doubt that has happened). Science and skepticism are the best ways to identify ideas with merit whilst rejecting those without. Now they are also going to yield false positives and negatives, that is true, but A) They will do this far less frequently than other methods (which, as far as I can tell, basically boil down to either guessing randomly or accepting ideas as true because you would like them to be/because someone in (unrelated) authority told you so) and B) They are self correcting, and DESIGNED to be so.

So, in conclusion, the downside of being a skeptic is that I've wasted far too much time typing this out. :) Or more seriously, the only real one is frustration when you see people being wilfully ignorant about your favoured areas of skepticism, leading to anger when these ideas are enacted into law (e.g. teaching of creationism in schools, opening of homeopathic hospitals on the NHS, oppression of gays based on religious teachings etc). Oh also, getting annoyed at movies with "OPEN YOUR MIND AND REJECT THE EVILNESS OF SCIENCE" messages.

[John Jackson]

I find skepticism to be a very positive thing. It has a negative image but that's really because people don't really understand what it is; they tend to equate it with being a disbeliever rather than a critical inquirer.

The (largely learned) ability to spot the bogus and get to heart of matters is a highly beneficial one. Skepticism can be used in all walks of life as a positive thinking tool. I've benefited greatly from using the method of skepticism in business decision-making rather than in dealing with the paranormal or pseudoscience for example.

The only problem, it seems to me, is when skeptics make it their mission to challenge each and every belief that people hold or to 'educate' everyone around them about all the nonsense out there. It's not intrinsically wrong to do that; but on a human level, it's not what people want or expect from those around them so it's easy for a skeptic to become isolated from others if they practise 'crusading skepticism'.

I think it really comes down to what you try to do with skepticism. It's of great benefit to those who use it for themselves but if you try to actively convert others you'll end up either studying psychology or end up thinking you're Napoleon Bonaparte. :D

[thisninjascrazy]

I'm definitely not on any sort of crusade. It's no skin off my nose if the guy down the road from me thinks he communicates with the Octopus People through his electric rock. Whatever gets him through the night, and all that. But it's always a drag to see friends or family members getting fed bum information.

But as far as meeting new people goes, my social skills are poor enough as it is. I can be honest to the point of being blunt and I could see how I might come off as an evil party-pooper fixated - nay, obsessed - with destroying other people's belief in the electric rock.

I apologise - in advance - for mentioning the electric rock. It's probably going to be a recurring theme with me. I don't know if anybody else has ever seen one, but imagine - if you will - a quartz-looking rock mounted on a base with a power plug. I once helped a friend move house and when I discovered her electric rock, my brain came to a screeching halt.

It might have been a neat idea if it were an elaborate lampshade, but apparently, it (and I quote) "Converted electricity into 'positive energy'". Make of that what you will.

[Ysidro]

History of the downside of being a skeptic:
Early 17th century: Skeptical of heliocentrism.
Mid 18th century: Skeptical of Germ theory of disease.
19th century: Skeptical of irrational numbers.
Early 20th century: Skeptical of special relativity.
Early 20th century: Skeptical of continental drift.
Mid 20th century: Skeptical that DNA was the molecule of genes.
Currently: Who knows?
I'm Skeptical that skepticism, Occam's razor, the scientific method, etc, are Infallible.

Who claimed infallibility? Isn't that usually reserved for religion? Science is just the best practice we have with our measily little senses.

And all those things? People were right to be skeptical of them. Until the evidence surmounted their skepticism and the ideas became accepted.

Hmmm, sounds like science to me!

[duggie]

Well thisninjacrazy, you may as well put a slug in the old brain box now.
The life journey of a skeptic is just eat, reproduce and die.

I WISH. In order to get laid nowadays you often have to go along with a bunch of woo nonsense like Astrology and "The Secet".

[Dr Adequate]

History of the downside of being a skeptic:
Early 17th century: Skeptical of heliocentrism.
Mid 18th century: Skeptical of Germ theory of disease.
19th century: Skeptical of irrational numbers.
Early 20th century: Skeptical of special relativity.
Early 20th century: Skeptical of continental drift.
Mid 20th century: Skeptical that DNA was the molecule of genes.
Currently: Who knows?
I'm Skeptical that skepticism, Occam's razor, the scientific method, etc, are Infallible. I know that when constructing a straw man the quality of the straw barely matters.

But you should really know that the existence of irrational numbers has been known since the sixth century BC.

I think the general moral to be drawn here is: don't prate windily in public about matters of which you know nothing.

[RichardR]

History of the downside of being a skeptic:
Early 17th century: Skeptical of heliocentrism.
Mid 18th century: Skeptical of Germ theory of disease.
19th century: Skeptical of irrational numbers.
Early 20th century: Skeptical of special relativity.
Early 20th century: Skeptical of continental drift.
Mid 20th century: Skeptical that DNA was the molecule of genes.
Nice appeal to Science Was Wrong Before (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/11/science_wrong.html). Nice but still fallacious.

Currently: Who knows?
I'm Skeptical that skepticism, Occam's razor, the scientific method, etc, are Infallible.
Well, no one said it was infallible, did they?

[articulett]

On the plus side...there's TAM

And the "whiteyonthemoon" types aren't there.

("Skeptic of the skeptics" translates into "I'm a woo" to me...it has the arrogant and ignorance of woo in one nice succinct statement.)

[Cactus Wren]

Skeptics often find themselves -- at least I've found myself -- caught between the rock and hard place. If you express your skepticism, then you're picking on people -- it's not hurting you any if they choose to believe aliens built the pyramids, you just hate for anyone to think about anything that isn't boring and mundane and materialistic, why are you being so MEEEEAN?

But if you don't express your skepticism -- if you just keep your mouth shut and at most murmur gently, "Yes, some people do say that" -- often your interlocutor will take this as agreement, or at least interest and willingness to be informed. I learned this in a workplace setting when I once found myself in the position of having to interview a man who claimed to be the last non-incarcerated member of the Viper (http://www.emergency.com/AZ-viper.htm) Militia (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july96/viper_7-2.html). He ranted at some length about how he was homeschooling to keep his children out of "government schools" where they would be taught that their grandparents were monkeys and religion was evil, how he had one "secret" gun for every one he kept visible in his home (so when the Govvament and the UN came to confiscate all the guns they wouldn't get all of his!), and more of the like. I just nodded and murmured, "Really. Is that so. Yes, some people do say that ... " and kept trying to steer the discussion back to the original topic.

At the interview's end, he complimented me on what an intelligent and perceptive person I was. I must have been -- after all, I hadn't contradicted him.

[Elizabeth I]

But as far as meeting new people goes, my social skills are poor enough as it is. I can be honest to the point of being blunt and I could see how I might come off as an evil party-pooper fixated - nay, obsessed - with destroying other people's belief in the electric rock.

I apologise - in advance - for mentioning the electric rock. It's probably going to be a recurring theme with me. I don't know if anybody else has ever seen one, but imagine - if you will - a quartz-looking rock mounted on a base with a power plug. I once helped a friend move house and when I discovered her electric rock, my brain came to a screeching halt.

It might have been a neat idea if it were an elaborate lampshade, but apparently, it (and I quote) "Converted electricity into 'positive energy'". Make of that what you will.

Oh, dear. I would just like to absolve myself here. A friend gave me a "salt lamp" as a gift. She explained enthusiastically that the salesperson had told her how it would cleanse the air of germs and allergens, change negative ions to positive (or the other way around, whichever is supposed to be the way to go) and discharge positive energy into the room. I kept it because (a) she is a really sweet person and (b) it does make the prettiest, peach-colored light.

Welcome to the forum, thisninjascrazy.

[whiteyonthemoon]

Many people seem to have agreed with me that "skepticism, Occam's razor, the scientific method, etc" are not infallible. They are useful methods of inquiry, but being that they aren't infallible, they have left people using those methods on the wrong side of the debate at many points in history, a few of which I named. I was giving an honest opinion of what has been the downside of skepticism historically. Would anybody else who said that skepticism isn't infallible care to give real examples of when it has lead to the wrong conclusions, if only temporarily? It shouldn't be hard, honest researchers on the development of science since Kuhn list many.
I never said anything about current science was wrong.
I would not know where to begin in suggesting an alternative to the scientific method. I like it, I dig it, I'm down with it. It's success is the reason why I apply the standards of the method to the method itself. I understand why this would come off as arrogant.
I don't see how being insulting helps at all. Save it for the bathroom wall.
Dr. Adequate: You are just mean, and you miss the point. Yes, irrational numbers were known of. Hell, they were PROVEN. Some people remained skeptical.
Articulet: You are mean too. Do you know me? What "type" am I?

[Skeptic Ginger]

What bums me out is every time I see yet another person making millions selling some woo crap like "Airborne" or Kevin Trudeau's book "The Cures They Don't Want You to Know About", I think, I could do that. I could sell woo and make millions.....That's the downside of being a skeptic. :)

[Slimething]

Many people seem to have agreed with me that "skepticism, Occam's razor, the scientific method, etc" are not infallible. They are useful methods of inquiry, but being that they aren't infallible, they have left people using those methods on the wrong side of the debate at many points in history, a few of which I named.

WotM, I don't get your point. You haven't demonstrated that these processes are infallible. I see nothing wrong with people being skeptical of new ideas so your list says nothing to me other than that Occam's Razor, skepticism and the scientific method are doing exactly what they were designed to do. Once the idea was established as fact from the evidence, all these processes are satisfied.

I believe what you are directing our attention to is the abuse of these processes. That is, the all-too-human resistance to new ideas or change whereby some scientists, skeptics, or anyone else who opposes an idea becomes intransigent even when the evidence supports the change. That is not a failure of the process but the participants.

I would not know where to begin in suggesting an alternative to the scientific method. I like it, I dig it, I'm down with it. It's success is the reason why I apply the standards of the method to the method itself. I understand why this would come off as arrogant.

You didn't apply the scientific method to itself. You applied it to those who are supposed to use it wisely. That would be humans and I don't think there's many areas of scholarship or development where such a test would not leave you disappointed.

[rjh01]

What bums me out is every time I see yet another person making millions selling some woo crap like "Airborne" or Kevin Trudeau's book "The Cures They Don't Want You to Know About", I think, I could do that. I could sell woo and make millions.....That's the downside of being a skeptic. :)

So what is stopping you? I am a skeptic of you being able to sell woo. Do you have any ideas on what brand of woo you can sell?

You could sell water concentrate. To dilute just add water. Another woo idea is to 'more and bigger organisms every time.' Or some woman's magizine that is full of ads or rubbish about the latest cleb. I know, sell a magazine about the other side and how people live.

[thisninjascrazy]

You could make a good living selling woo-related paraphenalia, but the hard thing would be trying to keep a straight face while you did it. If you've got a good 'poker face', you could move warehouses of electric rocks. I, however, wouldn't last five seconds on an infomercial without breaking into into hysterics. And then there's dealing with your customers...

"Wait a minute... You actually believe this... Uhh, no, I'm not laughing at you. I'm just really feeling the effects of the electric rock."

[Dr Adequate]

Dr. Adequate: You are just mean, and you miss the point. Yes, irrational numbers were known of. Hell, they were PROVEN. Some people remained skeptical. Who the heck was skeptical of irrational numbers in the nineteenth century?

[Dr Adequate]

Many people seem to have agreed with me that "skepticism, Occam's razor, the scientific method, etc" are not infallible. They are useful methods of inquiry, but being that they aren't infallible, they have left people using those methods on the wrong side of the debate at many points in history, a few of which I named. No.

How on earth do you suppose that heliocentrism, the germ theory of disease, special relativity, continental drift, and the genetic function of DNA were proven except through the scientific method?

It wasn't through people sitting around making woo-woo noises and whining about skepticism.

The scientific method put people on the right side of the debate. If it wasn't for the scientific method, you wouldn't know about any of this stuff. And now you complain about it.

[c4ts]

Who the heck was skeptical of irrational numbers in the nineteenth century?

Pythagoreans?

[whiteyonthemoon]

C4ts: Do you know the story of what the Pythagoreans did to Hippasus when he showed them his proof that the square root of two couldn't be a rational number? They murdered him by throwing him off the boat. Who knows if it's true. That would be some violent opposition to a new idea. Let's hope we can be more dispassionate than that in this forum. I won't count those Pythagoreans in with skeptics. I'll count them as mean people.
That now seemingly not-rational near worship of whole numbers that the Pythagoreans had remained until the 19th century. I'll quote Kronecker "God made the integers; all else is the work of man". His attitudes were common, and maybe for good reason. If I tell someone that there are quantities that can't be represented by ratios of whole numbers, they might want me to persuade them with overwhelming proof. What if I told you that there were some infinite sets that were larger than other infinite sets? You would be justified in scoffing. Well, that's what Cantor proved. Cantor was Kronecker's student. Guess what else he proved? The existence of irrational numbers. Many mathematicians of his time didn't like his new ideas, and gave him a really hard time over them. He developed depressive symptoms and pressures from the mathematical community didn't help. All of these people were brilliantly smart. I think a moral that skeptics might take from these events is that when something new or different comes along, try to understand it first. Don't be a dick, it doesn't help.
OK and science. Science. Science. Let's pretend that we have only a high school level of understanding of the scientific method, and that we never took a single college level course on the philosophy of science. If this is actually true for you, great, you should be way ahead. In high school they would tell you that within science there is debate. There are new theories, new ideas come up, and some people argue for these ideas, almost all of which turn out to be wrong, and many people argue against these new theories. That's great, theories come and go, and we shouldn't accept new ones without applying some sort of criteria. However, sometimes a new theory is correct, and the people who initially argue against it are proven wrong eventually. That is the downside of being them. The staunchest detractors from the new theories might be wrong for the longest period of time, and might not have contributed to the exciting new theory as much as they could have. It's not always glorious. That's where skeptics fit into science (high school version).
When did I complain?
Who is it that is stitching together straw men?

[John Jackson]

I think a moral that skeptics might take from these events is that when something new or different comes along, try to understand it first.


What? You mean that we shouldn't automatically oppose anything new and deny that it could be real? :eek: :D

Is that what you think skeptics are all about?

Perhaps you should give us your definition of a skeptic.

All you're succeeding in doing is displaying your complete ignorance of skepticism and your advice to (your wrong idea of) skeptics just makes you look silly.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Show me the evidence, whitey, don't give me the sales pitch. It's a simple format.

[whiteyonthemoon]

I don't know how much more clear I can be. Within science there is debate. On one side of the debate are the skeptics. They have turned out to be wrong sometimes. I listed a few instances in my original post. If anybody wants to take issue with my examples please do, as Dr Adequate did with skepticism of irrational numbers. If anybody wants to list more examples that too would be a real contribution to discussion.

This shouldn't be a stumbling block. Skepticism is a functioning subunit of the scientific method, and in that context its fallibility is an asset, not a liability. This is in the simplest description of how science works - that of Karl Popper, that which you might learn in high school. I just don't see how there can be any debate as to whether the skeptics have occasionally proven wrong. This is within the easiest and most charitable conception of scientific progress.

I don't think of myself as a skeptic, but I can freely admit that had I been born in another time or place I might have defended some entrenched ideas past when it was fashionable to do so. Who's with me?

It seems like there's the belief that being a skeptic is somehow about being right. I don't respect that. Everyone thinks they are right. Some skeptics think that they may be wrong, but that they are wrong for the right reasons, that they are contributing to a larger discussion by holding on to a well known stance. I can respect that, or on some occasions I respectfully disagree, but how do you respect someone who says that they could never have been wrong?

[Joppy]

The downside to skepticism is that it exists only because there is a society where thinking critically is a distinction.

[Heretic]

Hey, why not try vicious ridicule. Tell them "Yeah, the pyramids were built by aliens, WWF wrestling is a real sport, and we are in Iraq to free the people." Then ask them if they want to buy some prime swampland.

[Slimething]

I don't know how much more clear I can be.

John Jackson asked that you post your definition of a skeptic. That would be a good place to start. I'm not the only one who thinks you're using a different defintion than the rest of us.


Within science there is debate. On one side of the debate are the skeptics. They have turned out to be wrong sometimes. I listed a few instances in my original post. If anybody wants to take issue with my examples please do, as Dr Adequate did with skepticism of irrational numbers.

Take issue with what exactly? You listed instances where a new idea was proposed and there were skeptics. So what? Why don't you post a similar list of new ideas that were wrong and the skeptics turned out to be right? Skepticality is not about right or wrong. It's about reasoning through a new proposal. Once the process is satisfied, the skeptics become convinced.

This shouldn't be a stumbling block. Skepticism is a functioning subunit of the scientific method, and in that context its fallibility is an asset, not a liability.

You're not making sense. Skepticism and the scientific method are processes that you have not established as fallible. You're most probably refering to the conclusions of hard-boiled unbelievers but that's not skepticism.

I don't think of myself as a skeptic

I am glad of that. You don't seem to know what a skeptic is.

It seems like there's the belief that being a skeptic is somehow about being right.

Only to you. Being a skeptic is all about demanding evidence for a new idea and following it to its natural conclusion. Even the proponents of new ideas were skeptical of their findings at first. That is why they tested them before proposing them. That is why the rest of us test them before we accept them.

Everyone thinks they are right. Some skeptics think that they may be wrong, but that they are wrong for the right reasons, that they are contributing to a larger discussion by holding on to a well known stance. I can respect that, or on some occasions I respectfully disagree, but how do you respect someone who says that they could never have been wrong?

I think I am right in saying that you are very wrong about skepticism. Closed-mindedness is not part of it.

[articulett]

Articulet: You are mean too. Do you know me? What "type" am I?

Garden variety woo.

Whether I'm mean or not is a matter of opinion...skepticism involves finding the facts that are the same for everyone...the truth that just keeps being the truth no matter what people believe or what opinions people have about the facts.

Also, I have two t's in my name. :)

[SomeGuy]

I don't know how much more clear I can be.

This is something that depends on your education, general debating skills and willingness, I also do not know how much clearer you can be.

Within science there is debate. On one side of the debate are the skeptics.

If there's actual debate within science you are likely to find skeptics on either side of the fence.

At least one of your examples has allready been discredited, but heliocentrism is also a bad example, as a matter of fact most people that we would indentify today as skeptics were convinced almost right away because the evidence and mathematics were very compelling.

The only problem was that admitting this could get you executed by the christian church (it would be unfair to roman catholics to call this the roman catholic church, because it was at the time still one church, so it also is the predecessor of the later protestant churches).


They have turned out to be wrong sometimes. I listed a few instances in my original post.

I am actually quite sure that most of those examples are probably as bad as irrational numbers and heliocentrism.

If anybody wants to take issue with my examples please do, as Dr Adequate did with skepticism of irrational numbers. If anybody wants to list more examples that too would be a real contribution to discussion.


As you wished.


This shouldn't be a stumbling block. Skepticism is a functioning subunit of the scientific method, and in that context its fallibility is an asset, not a liability. This is in the simplest description of how science works - that of Karl Popper, that which you might learn in high school. I just don't see how there can be any debate as to whether the skeptics have occasionally proven wrong. This is within the easiest and most charitable conception of scientific progress.


While we are not disagreeing with the fact that skeptics have been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future, you are using this paragraph to work up to your strawman argument.


I don't think of myself as a skeptic, but I can freely admit that had I been born in another time or place I might have defended some entrenched ideas past when it was fashionable to do so. Who's with me?


Heck if Einstein could be sceptical of Quantum Mechanics, who am I to consider myself a better man than him.


It seems like there's the belief that being a skeptic is somehow about being right. I don't respect that. Everyone thinks they are right. Some skeptics think that they may be wrong, but that they are wrong for the right reasons, that they are contributing to a larger discussion by holding on to a well known stance.


That last sentence is not being a skeptics, it's at best being conservative and at worst being a denier.

I can respect that, or on some occasions I respectfully disagree, but how do you respect someone who says that they could never have been wrong?


Just the same as it's hard to respect you for attacking skeptics while using your own personalized defenition of a skeptic.

You asked before how your argument was a straw man argument, well I will try to explain:

You have the wrong idea of what a skeptic really is, you attack you own defenition of a skeptic as something that is bad thereby claiming to proof that skepticism can be a bad thing, that's classically what a strawman argument is.

[JanisChambers]

Sometimes the people I try to reason with act like Junkies defending their fix. I wish I could say I didn't know how that felt, but I started out just as addicted to unreason as many people. I can still remember struggling with losing the idea of God, it does hurt a great deal.

Sometimes I wish there was more we could do to help them out of it, more focus on the emotional aspects of skepticism much in the way Carl Sagan did. It relates much to when, as a child, we realize there is nothing under the bed. Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and James Randi have been great inspirations for me. I now have 'faith' in my own mind, in reason, in questioning everything and leaving no stone unturned.

[articulett]

BTW, I have never heard a skeptic say "I could never be wrong"--this seems like a false characterization as has already been noted. It reminds me of this notion of the atheist extremist or the arrogant atheist. When I ask people to cut and paste written examples from the vast web exemplifying the stereotype--they never come through. I think it's a woo notion to make themselves think they are humble while being incredibly arrogant. It's woos who pretend to "know" something via feelings and faith. The skeptic wants evidence--and is always willing to provide it and examine any offered. But it's always so lame--couched in bad grammar and semantic games--it always sounds so pouty and hypocritical and unintentionally ironic. I mean could the example about being "educated" in the cumbersome phrase about Karl Popper be any more illustrative?

Whitey, I hope you are young and have the privilege of time to laugh at how you naive and self-righteous you sounded in your youth. You are using recycled arguments, and you don't even understand the basics of the claims.
And who wrote the book that these "Popper/science=faith" arguments are coming from? I hear the same arguments or some poorly worded extrapolation of them from assorted believers. The woos always pretend these arguments are unique, but they're always the same...sometimes they'll toss in statements about scientists having "faith" that the sun will rise... but they get the facts so twisted that I can only attribute it to the doublespeak inherent in trying to find deep truths in a bronze age primitive text written by barbarians.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know how much more clear I can be. Within science there is debate. On one side of the debate are the skeptics. They have turned out to be wrong sometimes. I listed a few instances in my original post. If anybody wants to take issue with my examples please do, as Dr Adequate did with skepticism of irrational numbers. If anybody wants to list more examples that too would be a real contribution to discussion.

This shouldn't be a stumbling block. Skepticism is a functioning subunit of the scientific method, and in that context its fallibility is an asset, not a liability. This is in the simplest description of how science works - that of Karl Popper, that which you might learn in high school. I just don't see how there can be any debate as to whether the skeptics have occasionally proven wrong. This is within the easiest and most charitable conception of scientific progress.

I don't think of myself as a skeptic, but I can freely admit that had I been born in another time or place I might have defended some entrenched ideas past when it was fashionable to do so. Who's with me?

It seems like there's the belief that being a skeptic is somehow about being right. I don't respect that. Everyone thinks they are right. Some skeptics think that they may be wrong, but that they are wrong for the right reasons, that they are contributing to a larger discussion by holding on to a well known stance. I can respect that, or on some occasions I respectfully disagree, but how do you respect someone who says that they could never have been wrong?This issue comes up from time to time where people are operating on different definitions of what a skeptic is. I don't separate skepticism from science.

Some skeptics do but then you find out they are defining science differently than I do. They confine their definition of science to research related science.

My definition of both skepticism and science (or rather the scientific process) really boils down to critical thinking and an evidence based interpretation of the Universe.

With that in mind, I don't have a clue what you are talking about, "skeptics are sometimes wrong". Of course we are. Provide the supporting evidence and a skeptic, if convinced, will change their view. Naturally, in reality, some skeptics are more inclined to recognize their own errors than others are.

[Skeptic Ginger]

History of the downside of being a skeptic:
Early 17th century: Skeptical of heliocentrism.
Mid 18th century: Skeptical of Germ theory of disease.
19th century: Skeptical of irrational numbers.
Early 20th century: Skeptical of special relativity.
Early 20th century: Skeptical of continental drift.
Mid 20th century: Skeptical that DNA was the molecule of genes.
Currently: Who knows?
I'm Skeptical that skepticism, Occam's razor, the scientific method, etc, are Infallible.
These to me are simply examples of the growth of science and of the scientific knowledge base. I believe it was the church threatening to jail, and burn people alive if they adopted publicly a belief of heliocentrism.

I'm proud to say midwives figured out hand washing prevented infection long before the medical establishment did. They may have just practiced better hygiene for other reasons, but the results provided important evidence.

Later that same decade, (http://www.institute-shot.com/hand_washing_by_health_care_providers.htm) Ignaz Philipp Semmelweiss (1818-1865), a physician working at the Vienna Medical School, bolstered the case for puerperal fever as a contagious disease. At the time, the Vienna Lying-In hospital had two maternity wards, one staffed by midwives, and the other by medical students supervised by staff physicians. The mortality rate among women attended by midwives was approximately 2-3%; however, the students’ ward had a rate of 10% or more. While hospital administrators blamed the high mortality rates on poverty, this could not explain the difference between the two wards. Instead, Semmelweiss believed that the students, who received much of their medical training in the autopsy room, were carrying infections from cadavers they dissected to the women in the ward. When students and physicians scrubbed their hands with chlorinated lime instead of washing with ordinary soap and water, mortality fell to the levels observed in the midwives’ ward. Semmelweis’s work is now recognized as a landmark in the history of medicine. But, as with Holmes, his conclusions were not accepted at the time, and physicians continued to ascribe puerperal fever to some constitutional predisposition on the part of the patients.And of course, the people you are labeling as "skeptics" in the case of the germ theory were the established medical community who took many more years to accept they had been infecting their patients.

Sometimes though, a new idea just requires a lot of convincing evidence to overcome an old idea. And then the information takes a certain amount of time to disseminate. For a modern example, the public health had to undertake a campaign to convince doctors that H-pylori was indeed the cause of 95% of gastric ulcers. Long after it was confirmed, we still had many physicians treating ulcer disease with H2 blockers (lowering gastric acidity) and not treating the infection.

But with modern medicine, evidence based medicine is more and more becoming the standard and cases of resistance to accepting the research results such as that with H-pylori are increasingly rare. I'm not sure I'd equate any old established science communities with the skeptical community of today.

I'm not familiar with the history of physics and math sciences. Geologists had the same growing pains as medical sciences did. And I don't believe DNA was rejected as the basis of inheritance of traits so you'll need to remind me what you are referring to there. Evolution deniers are hardly skeptics and as I have learned pursuing a discussion on genetic science in another thread, work done as early as the beginning of the 20th century brought genetics into focus by mainstream biologists.

So to sum up, I can't see that any individual's or group of scientists' reluctance to accepting the conclusions required by new evidence as an indicator that "skeptics" per se are necessarily closed minded when it comes to new ideas. For every example you cite, there must be a million cases of stupid hypotheses people have claimed to have evidence for. And regarding the examples you do cite, there were probably many scientists who were persuaded by the evidence since in the end, the mainstream eventually came around.

[John Jackson]

And of course, the people you are labeling as "skeptics" in the case of the germ theory were the established medical community who took many more years to accept they had been infecting their patients.


That story is an excellent example of how it is automatically assumed that the people who disbelieved, denied, opposed, couldn't see the wood for the trees, etc. are the 'skeptics'.

Of course, the skeptics in this story, the ones who acted upon the evidence before them, were the midwives.

This is the unfortunate position we always end up in because of people's preconceptions and misunderstanding of what rational skepticism is.

Interestingly, when people automatically oppose things it's known as the "Semmelweiss Reflex" - something I personally have been accused of possessing because I don't think PSI phenomena are real!! :D

[thisninjascrazy]

That story is an excellent example of how it is automatically assumed that the people who disbelieved, denied, opposed, couldn't see the wood for the trees, etc. are the 'skeptics'.

Of course, the skeptics in this story, the ones who acted upon the evidence before them, were the midwives.

And thus it comes full-circle. Hakuna Matata and whatnot. It took me a while and a bit of research to distinguish between "Skeptic" and "Cynic". You can imagine how hard the distinction might be to somebody unfamiliar with Skepticism. There's a certain poster - I won't name names, but you know who he is - who may have also failed to grasp it. He seems to think we're cynics and he's the only 'true' skeptic. That, and the Jee-Man invented sex.

I can't believe this thread's still going. Not too shabby for my first ever forum post. Nice 'jawin'', y'all...

[Skeptic Ginger]

That story is an excellent example of how it is automatically assumed that the people who disbelieved, denied, opposed, couldn't see the wood for the trees, etc. are the 'skeptics'.

Of course, the skeptics in this story, the ones who acted upon the evidence before them, were the midwives.

This is the unfortunate position we always end up in because of people's preconceptions and misunderstanding of what rational skepticism is.

Interestingly, when people automatically oppose things it's known as the "Semmelweiss Reflex" - something I personally have been accused of possessing because I don't think PSI phenomena are real!! :DAs a side plug for nursing, Florence Nightingale kept meticulous records of her observations caring for the wounded. She was a true scientist. Nursing is founded in science, not in simply assisting doctors and caring for the sick as many believe. :)

Florence Nightingale (http://www.agnesscott.edu/Lriddle/WOMEN/nitegale.htm) During Nightingale's time at Scutari, she collected data and systematized record-keeping practices. Nightingale was able to use the data as a tool for improving city and military hospitals. Nightingale's calculations of the mortality rate showed that with an improvement of sanitary methods, deaths would decrease. In February, 1855, the mortality rate at the hospital was 42.7 percent of the cases treated (Cohen 131). When Nightingale's sanitary reform was implemented, the mortality rate declined. Nightingale took her statistical data and represented them graphically. She invented polar-area charts, where the statistic being represented is proportional to the area of a wedge in a circular diagram (Cohen 133).

As Nightingale demonstrated, statistics provided an organized way of learning and lead to improvements in medical and surgical practices. She also developed a Model Hospital Statistical Form for hospitals to collect and generate consistent data and statistics. She became a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society in 1858 and an honorary member of the American Statistical Association in 1874. Karl Pearson acknowledged Nighingale as a "prophetess" in the development of applied statistics.

A true skeptic! :D

[rjh01]

I have just discovered an old thread on a similar topic. The disadvantages of being a skeptic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53735)

[Explorer]

Critical thought is essential, and I would have thought that would have been a given. However, what I think is a little dubious is the label that says "I am a Skeptic!". In my view, it has the potential to stifle the creative process that is also essential, alongside critical thought, for scientific vision and innovation.

I learned critical thinking at university, and it was an eye opener for me, and as a consequence can never accept anything presented to me by the media at face value anymore. That even applies so-called scientific reporting, and this board is no exception to that.

I remember, a couple of years ago debating the issue of water divining, or rather "dowsing", with other member skeptics. The reality, or otherwise, of the phenomena seemed to hinge on a series of scientifically controlled tests designed to expose the fraudulent or deluded claims of a number of "expert" dowsers. I was unhappy with the design of the tests and felt that they were not representative of situation in the field, in other words I was skeptical of the applied "science" in this case. My argument was based on the principle that if these dowsers were able to earn a living from companies requiring their services, then there had to be some foundation to their claims. After all, if they were unsuccessful, they would soon go out of business. In response to this, it was suggested that anybody can drill a hole anywhere and find water. I think that answer requires no further comment from me.

Extraordinary claims do indeed require extraordinary evidence, and that kind of evidence requires extraordinary scientific skill in the design and control of experiments. I find, in general, insufficient discussion, criticism, and vision given to experiments, designed to expose the deluded and/or the fraudulent.

Maybe I am wrong, at least as far as this board is concerned, but when science strikes back at the paranormal, the skepticism seems to dry up and debate relating to the scientific method applied almost seems like a taboo.

Being a skeptic is actually a burden in life, as I now find it difficult to believe in anything anymore. Now what about quantum particles? Hmmmm!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Critical thought is essential, and I would have thought that would have been a given. However, what I think is a little dubious is the label that says "I am a Skeptic!". In my view, it has the potential to stifle the creative process that is also essential, alongside critical thought, for scientific vision and innovation.

I learned critical thinking at university, and it was an eye opener for me, and as a consequence can never accept anything presented to me by the media at face value anymore. That even applies so-called scientific reporting, and this board is no exception to that.

I remember, a couple of years ago debating the issue of water divining, or rather "dowsing", with other member skeptics. The reality, or otherwise, of the phenomena seemed to hinge on a series of scientifically controlled tests designed to expose the fraudulent or deluded claims of a number of "expert" dowsers. I was unhappy with the design of the tests and felt that they were not representative of situation in the field, in other words I was skeptical of the applied "science" in this case. My argument was based on the principle that if these dowsers were able to earn a living from companies requiring their services, then there had to be some foundation to their claims. After all, if they were unsuccessful, they would soon go out of business. In response to this, it was suggested that anybody can drill a hole anywhere and find water. I think that answer requires no further comment from me.

Extraordinary claims do indeed require extraordinary evidence, and that kind of evidence requires extraordinary scientific skill in the design and control of experiments. I find, in general, insufficient discussion, criticism, and vision given to experiments, designed to expose the deluded and/or the fraudulent.

Maybe I am wrong, at least as far as this board is concerned, but when science strikes back at the paranormal, the skepticism seems to dry up and debate relating to the scientific method applied almost seems like a taboo.

Being a skeptic is actually a burden in life, as I now find it difficult to believe in anything anymore. Now what about quantum particles? Hmmmm!

So are you claiming you can design a dowsing test properly and get results? Bet you a million you can't. :rolleyes:

[rjh01]

So are you claiming you can design a dowsing test properly and get results? Bet you a million you can't. :rolleyes:

Here is a link to a dowsing test that got results. James Randi In Australia, the full documentary. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1738560#post1738560) Now you owe me a million dollars.

Edit - Or maybe you owe James Randi a million?

[Porterboy]

The life journey of a skeptic is just eat, reproduce and die. No cosmic journey, no evolution of the soul (you dont have one) no higher purpose for this earthly existance.

Yeah, Buzz, but with all due respect, you do have your Materialist Bravery Award! Woos like me have to slog it out without one of them. I half expect people spit on me and shout "Coward!" Every time the postman calls I expect to see a white feather with my name on it!

I don't know you and I'm just generalizing here so there'll be many exceptions, but bear with me:

Is it just me or is there's been a kind of competition running to come up with a vision of the universe that's more bleak and pointless than any other? This is certainly what I've noticed in my Spritiualist discussion group. Those who don't believe in it strut around the room with their chests out, swaggering with their thumbs in their pockets like John Wayne, and for a very good reason: If you reject the concept of survival-of-death and soul purpose etc then you are set up for life! The street-cred it gives you will carry you through scientific and philosphical circles as a hero, a brave, hard-headed warrior who has the guts to face the awful truth of the finality of existance which the feeble, huddling masses dare not, hiding beneath their comforting blanket of religion. I bet they get laid more than the mystics do!

I wonder how many materialists (including some members of this forum who profess to be so) actually do believe in life-after-death and soul purpose etc, but won't speak out about it because they're afraid of being called wimps!

[thisninjascrazy]

Yeah, Buzz, but with all due respect, you do have your Materialist Bravery Award! Woos like me have to slog it out without one of them. I half expect people spit on me and shout "Coward!" Every time the postman calls I expect to see a white feather with my name on it!

I don't know you and I'm just generalizing here so there'll be many exceptions, but bear with me:

Is it just me or is there's been a kind of competition running to come up with a vision of the universe that's more bleak and pointless than any other? This is certainly what I've noticed in my Spritiualist discussion group. Those who don't believe in it strut around the room with their chests out, swaggering with their thumbs in their pockets like John Wayne, and for a very good reason: If you reject the concept of survival-of-death and soul purpose etc then you are set up for life! The street-cred it gives you will carry you through scientific and philosphical circles as a hero, a brave, hard-headed warrior who has the guts to face the awful truth of the finality of existance which the feeble, huddling masses dare not, hiding beneath their comforting blanket of religion. I bet they get laid more than the mystics do!

I wonder how many materialists (including some members of this forum who profess to be so) actually do believe in life-after-death and soul purpose etc, but won't speak out about it because they're afraid of being called wimps!

Who said anything about the 'bleakness' of the Universe? If I may butcher a quote from Richard Dawkins - and I believe I may - "Isn't a garden beautiful enough without having to imagine there are fairies down there?"

You've got to wonder sometimes. Why do people think something has to 'happen' when they die? Why do they have to look for divine 'meaning' to their existence? And why does it only seem to apply to humans? I've never heard anybody give an explanation (let alone a plausible one) of the meaning of my dog's life, or what'll happen to him when he passes away.

[skeptifem]

i think its really hard to correct people without coming off as bitchy. like i got in an argument about additives in collection tubes at work, my co workers tried to tell me that the red tubes had no additives (the glass ones do, but we have plastic) and i even showed them the tube with visible additive sprayed on the inside and they wouldnt believe me. you just cant win sometimes, no matter how obvious the evidence.

and thats such small potatos compared to the investment people have in their woo. so dont feel too bad i guess. ive gotten in arguments about woo long ago where i was wrong and couldnt admit it, but the more i thought about it the more i realized that person was right, and i came around later. so you might be doing some good even though you dont get to see it.

[Slimething]

Yeah, Buzz, but with all due respect, you do have your Materialist Bravery Award! Woos like me have to slog it out without one of them. I half expect people spit on me and shout "Coward!" Every time the postman calls I expect to see a white feather with my name on it!

You feel that believing in things you can't prove is a weakness? Or is it that others with whom you disagree view it as a weakness in you? Do you really believe that people who disagree with you want to harm you? You have a few unresolved issues that I would seek counseling on. Obfiously, you are trapped inbetween believing something you want to and adopting a philosophy you know will lead to the demystification of your higher level beliefs. To put you at ease, many skeptics have worked through those problems without having to give up their beliefs in either death-survival or souls.

Is it just me or is there's been a kind of competition running to come up with a vision of the universe that's more bleak and pointless than any other?

I have no idea what you're describing. You are assuming that life, the universe, etc lose their beauty if one dismisses any idea of an after-life? I would disagree strenuously. I have dismissed the death-survival stuff myself and know many other who have as well. Collectivelly, we can't understand why anyone would have to embellish nature with deities. If anything, sloughing what is probably man's self-agradizement give you a clearer appreciation of life, other humans and the universe that is unattainable without the veneer of judgementalism that a theology requires. I, for one, would hope that the good I did while alive would live on in this world rather than my sprouting wings and be stuck with the type of religious zealots I so dislike.

This is certainly what I've noticed in my Spritiualist discussion group. Those who don't believe in it strut around the room with their chests out, swaggering with their thumbs in their pockets like John Wayne, and for a very good reason: If you reject the concept of survival-of-death and soul purpose etc then you are set up for life!

As I"ve insinuated above, you seem to be mired between these two options, not realizing you have innumerable options. Frankly, I'd quit this group if it was leading to so much consternation in my life but you seem to be drawn to it. Maybe there's an overabundance of skeptics in your group? Also, keep in mind that exchanging views on an internet forum is much less efficient than doing so personally so try not to read too much intangilble stuff into other people's replies.

[Slimething]

i think its really hard to correct people without coming off as bitchy. like i got in an argument about additives in collection tubes at work, my co workers tried to tell me that the red tubes had no additives (the glass ones do, but we have plastic) and i even showed them the tube with visible additive sprayed on the inside and they wouldnt believe me. you just cant win sometimes, no matter how obvious the evidence.[quote]

This may help. I got it here (http://laboratory-manager.advanceweb.com/Common/editorial/Editorial.aspx?CC=11459).

[quote]The VACUETTE® line of plastic evacuated blood collection tubes is the most comprehensive in the industry. The red top serum tubes are coated with clotting activator to induce clotting in 10-30 minutes. Tubes with separating gel are also available. These tubes are suitable for chemistry assays, many TDM assays, and other assays where serum is needed as the sample. Sizes range from 2 ml to 9 ml.

As far as the approach you're taking, I like to use very oblique styles instead of correcting people. ("Hey. lookee these red-tops have something in them! See? I wonder what it is?") Sometimes, though, you're just put into that situation and you just have to take your lumps. Sorry about your run ins but NOT spreading wisdom is, to me, just the same as lying.

[skeptifem]

[quote=nails3jesus0;2542476]i think its really hard to correct people without coming off as bitchy. like i got in an argument about additives in collection tubes at work, my co workers tried to tell me that the red tubes had no additives (the glass ones do, but we have plastic) and i even showed them the tube with visible additive sprayed on the inside and they wouldnt believe me. you just cant win sometimes, no matter how obvious the evidence.[quote]

This may help. I got it here (http://laboratory-manager.advanceweb.com/Common/editorial/Editorial.aspx?CC=11459).



As far as the approach you're taking, I like to use very oblique styles instead of correcting people. ("Hey. lookee these red-tops have something in them! See? I wonder what it is?") Sometimes, though, you're just put into that situation and you just have to take your lumps. Sorry about your run ins but NOT spreading wisdom is, to me, just the same as lying.


yeah it said 'clot activator' on the package and they were still not believing me. i tried to be polite but one of em was like 'you arent gonna come up in here after working for a few weeks and act like you know everything are ya?" so i went and grabbed a tube and showed them that stuff was sprayed inside it, and then grabbed the package and showed them the label, and yeah. it was pretty insane. i get frustrated easily as well so thats probably why i went and grabbed the tubes.

theres just these tests that have to be very exact and use a light blue tube for blood coagulation tests, and a co worker told me to draw a red tube first and I said i wont and tried to explain why- because the clot activator could contaminate the hub of the needle and effect the test, showing that their blood isnt as thin as it actually is. I mean this is really important stuff, these people are usually on blood thinners and get these tests weekly, or stat if their results from the last test were bad. additive contamination is rare though, but i still dont want it to happen.

a few of them complain at me for wearing gloves when palpating for veins but i dont really care. I know im right about the way i do things and i cant seem to convince anyone. even my boss said to draw a red tube first and discard it. i can understand the frustration of the op but i cant really control the actions of others.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here is a link to a dowsing test that got results. James Randi In Australia, the full documentary. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1738560#post1738560) Now you owe me a million dollars.

Edit - Or maybe you owe James Randi a million?
The video is 43 minutes long. Go ahead and spoil the ending for me. You are basically claiming dousing works. I'd guess you want to show me how Mr Randi can give the illusion it works?

Sorry, no prize.

[Skeptic Ginger]

i think its really hard to correct people without coming off as bitchy. like i got in an argument about additives in collection tubes at work, my co workers tried to tell me that the red tubes had no additives (the glass ones do, but we have plastic) and i even showed them the tube with visible additive sprayed on the inside and they wouldnt believe me. you just cant win sometimes, no matter how obvious the evidence.

and thats such small potatos compared to the investment people have in their woo. so dont feel too bad i guess. ive gotten in arguments about woo long ago where i was wrong and couldnt admit it, but the more i thought about it the more i realized that person was right, and i came around later. so you might be doing some good even though you dont get to see it.I've found giving yourself the option ahead of time of being wrong makes it a lot easier to recognize when you are. Why do we need to be invested in being right?

As to the blood tubes, the additives are noted on the box and in the catalogues. For example, BD collection tubes. (http://www.bd.com/vacutainer/pdfs/plus_plastic_tubes_brochure_VS7164.pdf)

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
theres just these tests that have to be very exact and use a light blue tube for blood coagulation tests, and a co worker told me to draw a red tube first and I said i wont and tried to explain why- because the clot activator could contaminate the hub of the needle and effect the test, showing that their blood isnt as thin as it actually is. I mean this is really important stuff, these people are usually on blood thinners and get these tests weekly, or stat if their results from the last test were bad. additive contamination is rare though, but i still dont want it to happen.

a few of them complain at me for wearing gloves when palpating for veins but i dont really care. I know im right about the way i do things and i cant seem to convince anyone. even my boss said to draw a red tube first and discard it. i can understand the frustration of the op but i cant really control the actions of others.There should be a written lab procedure which specifies which order to draw multiple specimens. If your lab doesn't have one, larger labs like Quest do. I used to work as an agency ICU nurse making me always the 'new guy' but often knowing something others didn't. I had a much broader experience is all. So I found procedure manuals to be a girl's best friend. Half the time (probably 90% of the time) people don't even know procedure manuals exist, let alone ever use them. They prevent a lot of ego issues.

Why they would care about your phlebotomy technique is beyond me. OSHA requires gloves for phlebotomy with the exception of the blood bank which argued their patients were prescreened for risk, so what are your co-workers doing, palpating then putting on the gloves? That's stupid. If you can't feel a vein through a glove you probably can't feel it without one either. It's pressure your fingertip nerves are registering, not surface tactile sensations.

[hopfen]

I apologise - in advance - for mentioning the electric rock. It's probably going to be a recurring theme with me.

I think electric rocks are far more common than you might suppose.
Down at the hobby store in my neighborhood, they have a motor-driven cylinder for tumbling stones etc. with water and grit. It's labeled "Electric Rock Polisher."

So if electric rocks are common enough that they have spawned an industry devoted to machines for polishing them, then I'd say most people already secretly own one. Who'll be the first to admit it?

[Slimething]

theres just these tests that have to be very exact and use a light blue tube for blood coagulation tests, and a co worker told me to draw a red tube first and I said i wont and tried to explain why- because the clot activator could contaminate the hub of the needle and effect the test, showing that their blood isnt as thin as it actually is. I mean this is really important stuff, these people are usually on blood thinners and get these tests weekly, or stat if their results from the last test were bad. additive contamination is rare though, but i still dont want it to happen.

I thnk you were exactly right in doing what you did. I am guessing that the lab had used glass red tops and switched to plastic red tops without making sure that the red top symbolized the same thing in plastic as glass. Frankly, you're dead on that anything is important if it prevents a misdiagnosis or errant treatment. My favorite uncle was fond of "F**k them if they can't take a joke." for this type of thing. It's not a joke but he used it in the sense that people who get stupid aren't worth your time of day.

Great job!

[thisninjascrazy]

I think electric rocks are far more common than you might suppose.
Down at the hobby store in my neighborhood, they have a motor-driven cylinder for tumbling stones etc. with water and grit. It's labeled "Electric Rock Polisher."

So if electric rocks are common enough that they have spawned an industry devoted to machines for polishing them, then I'd say most people already secretly own one. Who'll be the first to admit it?

I've just got an old-school 'analog' rock. I'll admit that I've been dreaming of upgrading. Does that make me a bad person?

[Explorer]

So are you claiming you can design a dowsing test properly and get results? Bet you a million you can't. :rolleyes:

I am simply only claiming, IMHO, that the tests under discussion did not prove or disprove any real effect from dowsing, as the design of the test seemed to be geared merely to debunk, and was not representative of the field scenario.

The "results" that I would be seeking, skeptigirl, if I was called upon to design such tests would be to confirm or otherwise, my hypothesis that if certain people claiming to be water diviners, can actually make a living out of their services provided to private individuals and companies, then there may be some foundation to those claims.

I am not an apologist for dowsers or diviners or whatever you want to call them, I just simply seek the truth.

[Explorer]

Here is a link to a dowsing test that got results. James Randi In Australia, the full documentary. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1738560#post1738560) Now you owe me a million dollars.

Edit - Or maybe you owe James Randi a million?

Haven't had the time to see the documentary but have read a text link to the Australian tests, and want to quote this extract from it:

"Looking at the water test, it would seem the dowsers beat the odds. But the dowsers were claiming 80-100% accuracy, so by their own standards, they failed the test. A skeptic expects a 10% accuracy, but the 10% number only applies when enough tests have been conducted."

The dowsers are not scientists, and probably have not carried out statistical analysis of their own historical work, accurately, or at all. They have claimed for themselves 80%-100% accuracy, apparently. Was that based on the same disciplines, principles and parameters of the Randi tests? I doubt it. It was probably an anecdotal feeling of their results over many years of success and failures in the field, so we can ignore their own estimates of their historical performance, as they add little to the scientific results. Remember, good science does not seek to debunk, only to search for the truth, or as near to it as possible.

[whiteyonthemoon]

The "results" that I would be seeking, skeptigirl, if I was called upon to design such tests would be to confirm or otherwise, my hypothesis that if certain people claiming to be water diviners, can actually make a living out of their services provided to private individuals and companies, then there may be some foundation to those claims.

I am not an apologist for dowsers or diviners or whatever you want to call them, I just simply seek the truth.

So then the same would apply for tarot card readers and fortune tellers. They make a living providing services to private individuals and companies (and sometimes the president's wife).

The problem with dowsers is that they do provide a service. It's a tie breaking service based on appeal to expertise. Nobody's going to want to say "just drill here", it would be career suicide if they are wrong. It's easy to put expert consultant fees down on an accounting sheet though. I think there will continue to be dowsers based on the need for the claim of expertise in deciding the undecidable.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am simply only claiming, IMHO, that the tests under discussion did not prove or disprove any real effect from dowsing, as the design of the test seemed to be geared merely to debunk, and was not representative of the field scenario.

The "results" that I would be seeking, skeptigirl, if I was called upon to design such tests would be to confirm or otherwise, my hypothesis that if certain people claiming to be water diviners, can actually make a living out of their services provided to private individuals and companies, then there may be some foundation to those claims.

I am not an apologist for dowsers or diviners or whatever you want to call them, I just simply seek the truth.If you think dousing has not been sufficiently debunked, prove it works and you qualify for Randi's million dollars.

You seem to think after all the years of people looking at dousing, that none of them has yet properly tested it. I suggest if it worked, there would be evidence by now, given how often it has been tried.

[whiteyonthemoon]

Above it's been said that I haven't given a definition of Skeptic(It's also been said that I had given a definition convienient to my point of view. hmmm.) I've found it hard to find a concise definition for scientific skepticism. Here are a few quotes on the subject, and what I think of them. I'm looking for a definition that tells definitively what a skeptic is, so that I can say if an individual is a skeptic, Galileo, the Pope, Paracelsus, your mom, Isaac Newton, you. If we see skepticism as a method for which we can't choose an individual to personify, I'd like a concise definition which tells us if the method is being applied.

"A thing is not proved just because no one has ever questioned it. What has never been gone into impartially has never been properly gone into. Hence skepticism is the first step toward truth. It must be applied generally, because it is the touchstone." -Denis Diderot
I like this, but it doesn't really tell someone how to be a skeptic. Which assumptions are we to question? How do you generally go into things? Is it ever a good idea to accept something we don't understand about a theory because the rest of it works so well?

"It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas … If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you … On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones." - Carl Sagan ( I got this from wikiquote, so some parts are missing)
I like this framing a little more, it acknowledges the balancing act that must be carried out in the search for new knowledge. What I don't like about it is that it seems to hint that there should be some inherent difficulty in finding new ideas. I don't think being skeptical would lead to being closed minded, rather new ideas would be evaluated for plausibility the same way existing theories are. Then again, sometimes a seemingly totally crazy, out of step, or repugnant theory turns out to be right.

So I do think there are episodes in history in which people were overly cautious in exploring new ideas. All of the working parts of an explanation may not be known in order for us to examine and even possibly accept that a this explanation is correct. That is, I think people can be too skeptical. I mean smart people. People with genuine interest in understanding phenomena and the universe broadly. We have thousands of years of people using their different sensibilities about science to look back on. We should be able to find a few instances in which well meaning smart people in full view of the facts applying real skepticism turned out to be wrong. The point there would be twofold. First to demonstrate intellectual honesty, to admit that skeptics can be wrong, and not just in the abstract but with concrete examples(there might be some heroic skeptics that time forgot, just because they turned out to be wrong. Let's not look down our noses at them with 20/20 hindsite). The second point would be to examine what forces allowed advancement to the next theory, paradigm, whatever. Was it always really just new evidence? Never having funding? Never propaganda? Never proceeding on with a theory after experiments had disproved it? Never pretty illustrations? Never sarcasm?

So can anybody come up with a concise definition of skepticism, and an example in the history of our expanding understanding of the universe when skepticism was applied too broadly? Something over a hundred years ago, so that we can take the long view of the situation.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If a skeptic thinks they cannot be wrong, they aren't a skeptic. Again, you have a tad too much cynicism in your definition there.

Skeptics promote:

Critical thinking
Evidence based conclusions
Scientific process
Continual expanding body of knowledge and therefore revision of past conclusions as evidence supports alternatives

As far as a concise definition, threads go on forever discussing our opinions of skepticism. But I think we mostly do have the above components in that definition somewhere.

I may have forgotten something so this is not some final opinion.

[whiteyonthemoon]

In the former soviet union there were these hospitals that one could go to to drink blessed water which was a general cure all. Some people wanted to go in with a double blind study to determine if it was indeed the case that this water had healing effects. They suggested that the doctors engage in the ritual that gave the water it's powers, then a third party would administer to some water that had been transmogrified and to others some which hadn't, and then see if they had different effects. "No No!" said the doctors. "The water must be taken to the patient by the one who performed the ritual!". The experimental procedure was modified so that the doctor would transmogrify the water, then it would be taken behind a curtain, and potentially switched with another carafe of water. "but the water has to within site of the doctor!" Once again the procedure was modified so that now the doctor brought in two carafe of water, one having been transmogrified and the other not. They had the same effect. The doctors said "of course! The second carafe, being so close to the first and to the doctor, absorbed it's healing properties!"

Of course, a carafe of water is just a carafe of water. There's no difference between the one someone said had been transmogrified and any other. The infinite equivocation makes it so that you can't even say that this is a carafe of water, and that is something more than just that. How can you examine the validity of claims if the claims depend on different objects that in every conceivable way behave the same?

Someone give me a definition of skepticism so that we don't end up playing word games and equivocating endlessly. I need to know how to tell if someone is a skeptic or if they are not. If it's a method, how can I tell if it's not being applied correctly.
There is no way for me(or anybody in this thread)to make a point if the word skeptic means no specific thing.

[John Jackson]

So can anybody come up with a concise definition of skepticism...


This is how we describe skepticism to the UK public. It's an overview of skepticism, not an academic piece, but it is meant to get the basics over to those who have no idea what skepticism really is.

See: http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_is_skepticism.php

Note the piece about equivocation and assuming that anyone who is sceptical is therefore a Skeptic (!)

That's where your line of reasoning fails: you're assuming that anyone who shows doubt about something is therefore a skeptic.

[Mojo]

I think we've established that one of the downsides of skepticism is that people who have no idea what it involves are nevertheless prepared to attack it.

[whiteyonthemoon]

OK I read that. It's not concise (expressing much in few words). By that definition, which calls for delayed judgment before all the facts are in, many of the greatest scientists wouldn't be skeptics. Plenty of ego maniacs pushed their theory single mindedly and without trying to be even handed at all.

Once again, I'm more interested in examples than in discussing the theory in an abstract form. Please give an example of when the application of skepticism lead to erroneous results.

[Cuddles]

By that definition, which calls for delayed judgment before all the facts are in, many of the greatest scientists wouldn't be skeptics. Plenty of ego maniacs pushed their theory single mindedly and without trying to be even handed at all.

Evidence?

In any case, scientist != skeptic. I agree with Skeptigirl's definitions of science and skepticism, but there is an important difference between "science" and "scientist". Science and skepticism are both the process of evaluating claims based on evidence, although generally science is applied more to big concepts while skepticism is more about our own personal lives. However, "scientist" and "skeptic" are certainly not the same things. A skeptic is someone who applies skepticism to most things, while a scientist is just someone who is payed to do science. It is perfectly possible to be a bad scientist who does not follow the scientific method, but it is not possible to be a skeptic is you do follow the skeptical method, because that is how skeptic is defined. Scientist is a job description, skeptic is a way of life.

It took me a while and a bit of research to distinguish between "Skeptic" and "Cynic". You can imagine how hard the distinction might be to somebody unfamiliar with Skepticism.

I think part of the problem here is that many, if not most, skeptics are rather cynical. When it comes down to it it is hard not to be. Unfortunately most people, as you say, don't seem to understand the difference between what we say and how we say it.

[thisninjascrazy]

I'll be willing to conceed that I can be a very cynical person at times. Usually when it comes to other people and their motives, music produced after 1996, new movies, the ridiculous 'sub-cultures' people create (post-punk swedish emo-core, anyone?), new foods, beverages of a refreshing nature that aren't beer and did I mention people?

Come to think of it, I'm a deeply cynical bastard. But I'd like to think it's got no correllation between objectively studying facts and evidence in other matters. If somebody's got some concrete evidence that the Pyramiads were built by the Octopus People, I'll be all ears.

[SomeGuy]

OK I read that. It's not concise (expressing much in few words). By that definition, which calls for delayed judgment before all the facts are in, many of the greatest scientists wouldn't be skeptics. Plenty of ego maniacs pushed their theory single mindedly and without trying to be even handed at all.

Once again, I'm more interested in examples than in discussing the theory in an abstract form. Please give an example of when the application of skepticism lead to erroneous results.

First of all, you seem to have made a bit of a breakthrough in your understanding of skeptism and yes you are correct, many scientists are not as skeptical as they should be.

One of the most compelling cases of a skeptic being wrong is Albert Einstein's skeptical approach to Quantum Theory. He didn't like the theory for emotional reasons, but his counterarguments honored the scientific method, and he thought experiments, which he hoped would disprove the theory, are not amongst the strongest supporting evidence of Quantum Theory.

[whiteyonthemoon]

You might add to that the fact that Einstein doubted his calculations that said the universe should be expanding. He was understandably skeptical of this radical result and invented a fudge factor to remove what he thought was an unlikely result. In the end the theory turned out to be right without the fudge factor, which he called his greatest mistake. Applying skepticism in that instance was then, in his own words, his greatest mistake.

On the other hand, it's good that he was willing to ignore the skepticism of others, and proceed with his theories despite damning evidence. Walter Kaufman, an experimental physicist of the time, produced an experiment contradicting the predictions of relativity in 1906. With that experiment many lost interest in general relativity. A few young physicists that liked relativity for its beauty ignored this experimental evidence and pressed on with the new theory. A full decade later flaws in the experimental design were discovered. So there was a decade of a few intrepid explorers ignoring conventional wisdom and continuing to explore the theory.

[Mojo]

You might add to that the fact that Einstein doubted his calculations that said the universe should be expanding. He was understandably skeptical of this radical result and invented a fudge factor to remove what he thought was an unlikely result. In the end the theory turned out to be right without the fudge factor, which he called his greatest mistake. Applying skepticism in that instance was then, in his own words, his greatest mistake. Being doubtful is not the same thing as applying skepticism. Did he reject the idea that the universe was expanding simply because he thought the idea unlikely, or was there some evidence that appeared to show that the universe was not expanding? What evidence was there, at the time, to enable him to determine independently of his calculations whether or not the universe is expanding?

If there was evidence at the time that later turned out to be wrong, his mistake was in not applying skepticism to that evidence.

On the other hand, it's good that he was willing to ignore the skepticism of others, and proceed with his theories despite damning evidence. Walter Kaufman, an experimental physicist of the time, produced an experiment contradicting the predictions of relativity in 1906. With that experiment many lost interest in general relativity. A few young physicists that liked relativity for its beauty ignored this experimental evidence and pressed on with the new theory. A full decade later flaws in the experimental design were discovered. So there was a decade of a few intrepid explorers ignoring conventional wisdom and continuing to explore the theory.So Kaufman wasn't wrong because he employed skepticism: he was wrong because of flaws in his experimental design. If the young physicists in question had applied some skepticism to Kaufman's experimental design (or indeed if he had done so himself), and exposed the flaws at the time, a lot of physicists may have been able to avoid spending several years working on the basis of erroneous data.

[whiteyonthemoon]

At the time that Einstein put his theory forth the idea of an expanding universe was not on the table. It would have been thought of as bizarre, and people would have rejected the theory based on that alone. I think Einstein's development of the "cosmological constant" was a genuine application of skeptical thinking and I would disagree that it was a mistake. In order to get his theory accepted he cleaned it up a bit. If he hadn't he would have had to wait five years for a theory that contained an expanding universe (big bang theory), and another ten after that for experimental evidence (provided by Hubble). I reiterate: the idea that the universe was expanding would have been thought of as grade A guano at the time. At the time there were many good critical thinkers in the field of physics, but it would not have been accepted. It would have been seen as a predictive consequence of the unmodified theory that was beyond outlandish.

As for Kaufman, I totally agree. He was a skeptic employing skepticism, and he was wrong because of a flaw in his design, not a flaw in his methods. What is interesting is that there were a different set of people who did not follow the skeptical method that went on to contribute to what was later the triumphant theory. If Skepticism is a method, it can't tell one person to do one thing and another to do something very different, unless it contains a "but really just do what you feel like" clause, in which case it's hardly a method. So there were people following a method distinct from that of the skeptic method that went on to aid in development of the theory of relativity.

[Porterboy]

Who said anything about the 'bleakness' of the Universe? If I may butcher a quote from Richard Dawkins - and I believe I may - "Isn't a garden beautiful enough without having to imagine there are fairies down there?"

You've got to wonder sometimes. Why do people think something has to 'happen' when they die? Why do they have to look for divine 'meaning' to their existence? And why does it only seem to apply to humans? I've never heard anybody give an explanation (let alone a plausible one) of the meaning of my dog's life, or what'll happen to him when he passes away.

Well, as I said, there are exceptions.

I don't have a dog, but I've got four cats and I'd say their lives have some kind of divine meaning. But an explanation? I'm afraid I'm lost there. It's not something I can define in words.

[Porterboy]

You feel that believing in things you can't prove is a weakness? Or is it that others with whom you disagree view it as a weakness in you? Do you really believe that people who disagree with you want to harm you? You have a few unresolved issues that I would seek counseling on. Obfiously, you are trapped inbetween believing something you want to and adopting a philosophy you know will lead to the demystification of your higher level beliefs. To put you at ease, many skeptics have worked through those problems without having to give up their beliefs in either death-survival or souls.


I think there are those who see Wooism as a weakness, yes. I don't I see it as simply an alternative view or mindset. I used to be a materialist as a teenager and was led into Wooism by a long series of experiences I had. I've not met anyone in the fleash who wants to harm me, but online people can be very rude when they encounter someone who thinks differently from them, both Woo and Skeptic. It's almost as if its a crime of some sort!

[Mojo]

At the time that Einstein put his theory forth the idea of an expanding universe was not on the table. It would have been thought of as bizarre, and people would have rejected the theory based on that alone. I think Einstein's development of the "cosmological constant" was a genuine application of skeptical thinking and I would disagree that it was a mistake. In order to get his theory accepted he cleaned it up a bit. If he hadn't he would have had to wait five years for a theory that contained an expanding universe (big bang theory), and another ten after that for experimental evidence (provided by Hubble). I reiterate: the idea that the universe was expanding would have been thought of as grade A guano at the time. At the time there were many good critical thinkers in the field of physics, but it would not have been accepted. It would have been seen as a predictive consequence of the unmodified theory that was beyond outlandish. You say that the expanding universe was "not on the table". You say that the idea that the universe was expanding would have been "thought of as grade A guano". Why was this? Was there evidence that appeared to suggest that the universe was not expanding? If the evidence of Einstein's calculations suggested that the universe was expanding, and he rejected this idea, in the absence of any other evidence, simply because he didn't like it (or thought that others wouldn't like it), then that's not skepticism as I would define it.

[Porterboy]

I have no idea what you're describing. You are assuming that life, the universe, etc lose their beauty if one dismisses any idea of an after-life? I would disagree strenuously. I have dismissed the death-survival stuff myself and know many other who have as well. Collectivelly, we can't understand why anyone would have to embellish nature with deities. If anything, sloughing what is probably man's self-agradizement give you a clearer appreciation of life, other humans and the universe that is unattainable without the veneer of judgementalism that a theology requires. I, for one, would hope that the good I did while alive would live on in this world rather than my sprouting wings and be stuck with the type of religious zealots I so dislike.


I'm not describing that at all. I'm just describing something I've noticed at my Spiritualist discussion group. That is that the members who hold materialist views seem to feel superior and, although they're always polite and professional, a little condescending. They've actually said as much as some members here have: that Woo beliefs are just a psychological denial system to protect the from the awful truth of life: that it is meaningless, purposeless and finite; and because they could face up to life without that denial system, they therefore form a kind of elite.

It's a good group actually and I've no intention of leaving. We have no religion, as such. I follow no established religion at all and I'm certainly not a zealot of anything.

[Porterboy]

I half expect people spit on me and shout "Coward!" Every time the postman calls I expect to see a white feather with my name on it!



This statement was just meant as a humourous hyperbola! :blush:

[Porterboy]

As I"ve insinuated above, you seem to be mired between these two options, not realizing you have innumerable options. Frankly, I'd quit this group if it was leading to so much consternation in my life but you seem to be drawn to it. Maybe there's an overabundance of skeptics in your group? Also, keep in mind that exchanging views on an internet forum is much less efficient than doing so personally so try not to read too much intangilble stuff into other people's replies.

Actually I don't feel any consternation at all. It's just something I've noticed: That the Skeptics in the group who see themselves as superior are also possibly in a position of insecurity too, and that the materialist line might be a way to cope with it; in the same way that Wooism is a means for the non-Skeptics to cope, as they see it. Materialism has its own brand of seduction. It promises presitge and bravado. It allows you access to the crowd who embrace each other in an almost Masonic-style exclusivity.

[skeptifem]

There should be a written lab procedure which specifies which order to draw multiple specimens. If your lab doesn't have one, larger labs like Quest do.

see the thing is that the order of draw poster is ON THE WALL OF EVERY STATION. ughghg. people frustrate me so much there.

I used to work as an agency ICU nurse making me always the 'new guy' but often knowing something others didn't. I had a much broader experience is all. So I found procedure manuals to be a girl's best friend. Half the time (probably 90% of the time) people don't even know procedure manuals exist, let alone ever use them. They prevent a lot of ego issues.

they said 'ignore it' to the signs, and i was thinking 'why the hell are they posted then?'

Why they would care about your phlebotomy technique is beyond me. OSHA requires gloves for phlebotomy with the exception of the blood bank which argued their patients were prescreened for risk, so what are your co-workers doing, palpating then putting on the gloves? That's stupid. If you can't feel a vein through a glove you probably can't feel it without one either. It's pressure your fingertip nerves are registering, not surface tactile sensations.

the people at that lab are catty as hell. its really, really bad. I will be getting ready to poke and they will come up and start palpating (without gloves of course!) and tell me to poke somewhere else where they can feel a vein and i cant and tell me to change needles and all kinds of ****. its completely stupid and they are just trying to bully me, they have done this to a bunch of other women at the job and i cant wait to get hired somewhere else.

after telling people i am not going to touch strangers without gloves someone told my boss i dont know how to feel veins at all, and that i cant draw on black people because i cant see the veins through the skin. i am starting to get extremely *********** pissed off, but this is my first phleb job so i guess i will have to put up with it. My bosses must be idiots to believe that, they must not have drawn in years to think that all veins on white people are visible/all veins on black people arent visible. its simply untrue and silly . the girls telling me to feel w/o gloves learned that way, so they are better at it without gloves, but i am making an effort to always use gloves so i wont have to remove them. i explained that but still they **** talk me behind my back to my boss.


there was another time i was trying to tell them its dangerous to feed honey to infants and still no one would believe me. its just so damn frustrating.

[skeptifem]

I thnk you were exactly right in doing what you did. I am guessing that the lab had used glass red tops and switched to plastic red tops without making sure that the red top symbolized the same thing in plastic as glass. Frankly, you're dead on that anything is important if it prevents a misdiagnosis or errant treatment. My favorite uncle was fond of "F**k them if they can't take a joke." for this type of thing. It's not a joke but he used it in the sense that people who get stupid aren't worth your time of day.

Great job!


thanks. :) i just wish i got evaluated based on numbers rather than what my co workers say about me, and thats the way my bosses are doing things. so i have to be popular in order to be considered good. its lame. im keeping my own numbers to show them if they try to alledge anything untrue though.

[Slimething]

I've found it hard to find a concise definition for scientific skepticism.

Here's the link to the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism)on skepticism. It has a fairly good treatment of the subject. There are many others. Just Google "skepticism" and you get loads. Quotations about something are not good definitions so, although I enjoyed the quotes, they really don't help.

So I do think there are episodes in history in which people were overly cautious in exploring new ideas.

I attribute those times to lack of skepticism in society as in the Dark Ages when anything the church said was accepted without examination.

All of the working parts of an explanation may not be known in order for us to examine and even possibly accept that a this explanation is correct. That is, I think people can be too skeptical. I mean smart people. People with genuine interest in understanding phenomena and the universe broadly. ... The point there would be twofold. First to demonstrate intellectual honesty, to admit that skeptics can be wrong, and not just in the abstract but with concrete examples(there might be some heroic skeptics that time forgot, just because they turned out to be wrong. ... The second point would be to examine what forces allowed advancement to the next theory, paradigm, whatever.

You seem to be confusing the vulgar definition of a skeptic (intransigent doubter) for the philosophical or scientific definition of skeptic (investigator, deliberator). You need to decide which you're going to use and, if not the one we use here on the forum (the latter), state so in your post. I don't believe anyone will disagree that unbridled doubt in the face of evidence is beneficial but that is not what skepticism is about. A philosophical or scientific skeptic keeps an open mind, evaluates the evidence and follows a logical path to a conclusion. What you are describing is far from that.

So can anybody come up with a concise definition of skepticism, and an example in the history of our expanding understanding of the universe when skepticism was applied too broadly? Something over a hundred years ago, so that we can take the long view of the situation.

It's not as easy as all that. Skepticism is a philosophical system dating back to at least 365 BCE. Read up on it here (http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/skepanci.htm).

[whiteyonthemoon]

Mojo: So if I told you that modern physicists are considering reintroducing the cosmological constant into their calculations, does Einstein get back his status as a skeptic?

Slimething: I was going with the definition pointed to by the quotes I gave with the some caveats. I'm trying to be as charitable as possible without leaving room for equivocation. It seems though that when I suggest a definition that would allow any sort of examination of how skepticism actually works in a historical context, I am accused of being cynical or vulgar. I don't mean for my direct approach to be taken as offensive, but in my view nothing is sacred.

When I look at the wikipedia article on skepticism, the scientific skepticism part, it says "the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking." That's my definition of common sense. If someone doesn't follow this it doesn't make them not a skeptic, it makes them not sane. Who would accept a claim they thought was unlikely to be true? The bar for skepticism needs to be a little higher.

Anyway, it's all too abstract without examining real cases. So in your view, was Einstein practicing skepticism when he continued to develop his theory though there was damning evidence against it?

[SomeGuy]

Mojo: So if I told you that modern physicists are considering reintroducing the cosmological constant into their calculations, does Einstein get back his status as a skeptic?

No it doesn't. There is a reason I picked his "fight" with quantumphysics as example of skepticism and not the cosmological constant or his pushing through despite damning evidence. (Especially because the latter isn't quite as black and white as you make it seem)


Slimething: I was going with the definition pointed to by the quotes I gave with the some caveats. I'm trying to be as charitable as possible without leaving room for equivocation. It seems though that when I suggest a definition that would allow any sort of examination of how skepticism actually works in a historical context, I am accused of being cynical or vulgar. I don't mean for my direct approach to be taken as offensive, but in my view nothing is sacred.


Whenever you propose a defenition that still fits your criticism you are accused of being cynical and vulgar... The distinction is important.

The problem is that you are still confusing being sceptical with being skeptical, while they are related they are not equal.

And before we get into another definition debate, I am quite sure that the word vulgar was used here in it's meaning of "popular", and not meant to sound demeaning.


When I look at the wikipedia article on skepticism, the scientific skepticism part, it says "the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking." That's my definition of common sense. If someone doesn't follow this it doesn't make them not a skeptic, it makes them not sane. Who would accept a claim they thought was unlikely to be true? The bar for skepticism needs to be a little higher.


Most of us(skeptics) would agree that skepticism is little more than common sense. The crux I think is what is exactly meant with critical thinking, and how big can your logical "leaps of faith" be while still remaining a skeptic.

You say that someone not following this is not sane, so let's apply critical thinking to a couple of issues and I would very much like to know if you still consider those who believe in them not sane.

1) Faeries: People who believe in faeries seem to hold the believe that they are just like little people with wings.

This must mean they have an intelligence on par at least with some of the higher order mammals. They are assumed to have complex decision making skills, thus are capable of evaluating cause and effect, some accounts even claim they are capable of communication (sometimes with people).

But their brain is the size of a walnut....

2) Astrology: Based on the idea that earth is stationary and the planets orbit around earth. Based on the idea that the position of those planets in that orbit affect the whole life of people born under them.

Even though we now have much better understanding of how our solar system works, people still think believe this stuff.

Are they insane?

3) Homeopathy claims that the further diluted the more powerful a medicine is. Dilution is to the point that most bottles don't contain a single atom, but the water has been empowered with it by shaking... How this doesn't empower polutants in the water along the way is something that no homeopath can explain.

Some say that the homeopath doing the shaking helps determine which elements gets empowered, but that ignores the fact that a lot of the shaking is done mechanically now.

So people believing in homeopathy are insane too? There is not many sane people left in your world eh?

...

Actually I agree upto a point, which is why it is so important that skepticism is around to protect the insane from themselves, wether they want us to or not.


Anyway, it's all too abstract without examining real cases. So in your view, was Einstein practicing skepticism when he continued to develop his theory though there was damning evidence against it?

This is not as black and white as you make it seem. While Kaufman's experiment seemed to show the theory had shortcomings, it was also the only theory that correctly predicted a slew of effects.

One seemingly damning experiment doesn't naturally mean a theory is discarded, especially a theory that's still in development.

The theory of relativity had a lot going for it, even at that time.

[Explorer]

So then the same would apply for tarot card readers and fortune tellers. They make a living providing services to private individuals and companies (and sometimes the president's wife).

The problem with dowsers is that they do provide a service. It's a tie breaking service based on appeal to expertise. Nobody's going to want to say "just drill here", it would be career suicide if they are wrong. It's easy to put expert consultant fees down on an accounting sheet though. I think there will continue to be dowsers based on the need for the claim of expertise in deciding the undecidable.

The same does not apply to fortune tellers or tarot card readers, as the results of their predictions by nature, are nebulous and vague. With dowsers, you either find water at the spot identified, or you do not. The reason that fortune tellers make a living is because there is a sufficient pool of customers out there who enjoy being told something about themselves and what is going to happen to them, whether they believe it, or not. It isn't the result that is important, it is the experience.

The Roller Coaster and the Big Dipper doesn't take you anywhere, but you can both enjoy the experience, and be scared by it.

[Explorer]

If you think dousing has not been sufficiently debunked, prove it works and you qualify for Randi's million dollars.

You seem to think after all the years of people looking at dousing, that none of them has yet properly tested it. I suggest if it worked, there would be evidence by now, given how often it has been tried.

My point was only addressing one particular controlled test that in my view was inadequate.

I have seen a dowser at work, and he traced the course of a water pipe very accurately in a large garden. Local knowledge could not provide the location for the owner, and the dowser wasn't local. Now, does that make me believe in the reality of dowsing? No, but it was an impressive feat by someone who was placing marker rods seemingly with little necessity for visual scrutiny of the site, and without knowing where the start and finish of the pipe was in the first place. He took his £25 for his half and hour's work, and he and the owner parted company both very happy.

[Slimething]

Slimething: I was going with the definition pointed to by the quotes I gave with the some caveats.

WotM, quotes are not a good source of definition because they usually refer to only one aspect of the subject phenomenon. Don't use quotes to define. Certainly, you can use them to highlight the aspect you want to build on but you have to be careful as using a noted authority on a subject as a basis for novel proposals can be viewed as an Appeal to Authority. Try starting at an accepted definition and proceed from that point.

It seems though that when I suggest a definition that would allow any sort of examination of how skepticism actually works in a historical context, I am accused of being cynical or vulgar. I don't mean for my direct approach to be taken as offensive, but in my view nothing is sacred.

I think you may have misunderstood my use of the word "vulgar" in my earlier reply. I meant the less used but most direct definition which is the one that relates to common (non-technical) usage as given here (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=vulgar). There was nothing offensive in what you wrote. What I meant by "vulgar" is more like "popular".

When I look at the wikipedia article on skepticism, the scientific skepticism part, it says "the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking." That's my definition of common sense.

WotM, I agree that it's common sense but it's also skepticism. Now, you're getting it. Skepticism involves a philosophy of open-mindedness yet a discernment of what is testable and what is not. A new, testable proposal is not judged positively or negatively until the evidence is in. Even then, your conclusion may be to suspend judgement until you are satisfied with the evidence in one direction or another. That's all it is. No big whoop. I think that you've been writing about cynisism or incredulity in your previous posts, not skepticism.


If someone doesn't follow this it doesn't make them not a skeptic, it makes them not sane. Who would accept a claim they thought was unlikely to be true? The bar for skepticism needs to be a little higher.

Well, I disagree with your test for sanity but let's follow on from there. It's not that a skeptic rejects anything that is not already part of their ken but must first evaluate it for the ability of the proponent to provide evidence. If the nature of the claim is that it is untestable, a skeptic views it as "unfalsifiable". Not wrong or right but not testable and, therefore, not justifiable toward objective belief. It could be right, it's just not verifiable. At that point, a skeptic can do with it as s/he wishes. Most of the time, to leave it behind.

Anyway, it's all too abstract without examining real cases. So in your view, was Einstein practicing skepticism when he continued to develop his theory though there was damning evidence against it?

If you are refering to his abandoning mathematical rigor because he felt no one would believe his results, I must say that he abandoned skepticism. If the tale you have posted is true, Einstein's timidity surprises me. Here is a physicist who years back revolutionized the world exactly by using mathematics to posit that time and space are variable then draws back on an expanding universe? He must have grown soft in his old age. That, of course, is understandable because what I've read of Einstein is that he was not only a genius but also one of the more human of the giant intellects. Einstein was human and, therefore, fallible. No hero worship allowed for skeptics, I'm afraid.

[Mojo]

Mojo: So if I told you that modern physicists are considering reintroducing the cosmological constant into their calculations, does Einstein get back his status as a skeptic? When did he lose his status as a skeptic?

In order for the fact that "modern physicists are considering reintroducing the cosmological constant into their calculations" to have any relevance to whether someone of Einstein's vintage was a skeptic, they would have to somehow know that physicists were going to be doing this in 100 years time, and would have to know whether this decision by "modern physicists" was based on good evidence. It is only possible to consider evidence that is available at the time.

Anyway, it's all too abstract without examining real cases. So in your view, was Einstein practicing skepticism when he continued to develop his theory though there was damning evidence against it?Einstein was, apparently, confident that the evidence provided by his maths was robust enough for him to disregard Kaufman's data.

[John Jackson]

I'm more interested in examples than in discussing the theory in an abstract form. Please give an example of when the application of skepticism lead to erroneous results.


Well, if you want to attack or defend a position it is vital that both sides are in agreement about what is being discussed. Otherwise an endless and pointless debate will ensue where people use the same words but with different meanings. e.g. watch any debate between people talking about "belief" (a very equivocal word).

What I'm also seeing is that you seem to be setting yourself up for a "science has been wrong before" type argument. People who do this pick an example of where scientists have been wrong about something and use this to discredit science as a whole and/or use the fact to support an alternative view. e.g. 'Medical science gave us Thalidomide therefore it is harmful and homeopathy is better as it doesn't harm people'.

Of course skeptics have been wrong before but no-one is arguing that they have not been. In fact, part of the skeptical method is the requirement for skeptics to change stance on an issue if new evidence comes to light that shows their previous position to have been wrong. That's a strength; not a weakness.

Rather than choose individual examples of where scientists or skeptics have been wrong before, it would be better to view skepticism as a whole. Is it more likely than 'other ways of knowing' (religion, mysticism, psychic intuition, etc.) to lead to true, justified belief?

I would say that it does - but I'd be only too pleased if a better system were explained to me.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

I have seen a dowser at work, and he traced the course of a water pipe very accurately in a large garden. Local knowledge could not provide the location for the owner, and the dowser wasn't local. Now, does that make me believe in the reality of dowsing? No, but it was an impressive feat by someone who was placing marker rods seemingly with little necessity for visual scrutiny of the site, and without knowing where the start and finish of the pipe was in the first place. He took his £25 for his half and hour's work, and he and the owner parted company both very happy.
A lot of woo is supported with impressive feats. Trouble is one cannot repeat such feats in any kind of well designed/observed study. If you can only do it when there are no controls in place to keep you honest, then it is either mere coincidence, guessing with cues, (could be that underground line was in an obvious choice of locations), or fraud. But valid woo, it ain't.

[Explorer]

"Trouble is one cannot repeat such feats in any kind of well designed/observed study."

...and that is precisely my point SG. Are the "well designed" tests really well-designed? Surely, a valid question if you are being balanced, and truly skeptical in seeking the truth!

[rjh01]

My point was only addressing one particular controlled test that in my view was inadequate.

I have seen a dowser at work, and he traced the course of a water pipe very accurately in a large garden. Local knowledge could not provide the location for the owner, and the dowser wasn't local. Now, does that make me believe in the reality of dowsing? No, but it was an impressive feat by someone who was placing marker rods seemingly with little necessity for visual scrutiny of the site, and without knowing where the start and finish of the pipe was in the first place. He took his £25 for his half and hour's work, and he and the owner parted company both very happy.

There are several ways this can be done.

1. There may be plans of where the pipes go, which the dowser had read.

2. He did know the start and end locations of the pipes.

3. There may be visual clues that he could detect. Would be true if the pipes had been down for only a few years, or were shallow.

4. The pipes were not there at all. Did anyone check?

[Slimething]

Are the "well designed" tests really well-designed?

A well-designed test (yes, I realize there's a pun there for dowsing tests) in the case of the paranormal seeks to primarily exclude bias, explorer. Double-blind tests are, so far, the best system to achieve this. Do you have a better design against bias? If so, post it with a brief (as brief as possible, please) explanation of why your approach is better than a double-blind test.

[Cuddles]

I have seen a dowser at work, and he traced the course of a water pipe very accurately in a large garden. Local knowledge could not provide the location for the owner, and the dowser wasn't local. Now, does that make me believe in the reality of dowsing? No, but it was an impressive feat by someone who was placing marker rods seemingly with little necessity for visual scrutiny of the site, and without knowing where the start and finish of the pipe was in the first place. He took his £25 for his half and hour's work, and he and the owner parted company both very happy.

But how do you know he did not know where the pipes were? To take an example from another thread on dowsing :
Years ago, I wrote on here of a maintenance worker here at the University, whom I observed reading the charts of where the various pipes were, then confirming the charts by using his dowsing rod.

I bet he thought that every success proved him right.

Finding pipes is in no way impressive because there are always records of them, and often visual clues as to where they are, or simply common sense (for example, the water main to my old house just ran along a hedge). And of course, as rhj01 asks, did anyone actually check? If they wanted to know where the pipes were just to avoid hitting them while digging then it is entirely possible that the dowser was simply wrong, but since there is only a small chance of hitting a pipe anyway the owner might never have noticed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Trouble is one cannot repeat such feats in any kind of well designed/observed study."

...and that is precisely my point SG. Are the "well designed" tests really well-designed? Surely, a valid question if you are being balanced, and truly skeptical in seeking the truth!To answer your question, Yes! An emphatic Yes! Well designed studies have been done to test for the validity of dowsing. It's WOO!

Start here. (http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/)

A simple experiment (http://www.idsnews.com/news/story1_modify.php?id=38317)Ray Hyman, a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon, knows quite a bit about how the triangular Ouija stylus seemingly glides across the board without being intentionally pushed by those playing. It's called the ideomotor effect, and it is the widely accepted principle on which the scientific community explains dowsing, facilitated communication and, of course, the Ouija. Ideomotor effect refers to the psychological phenomenon in which people unconsciously move, especially when claiming that the motions were induced by a supernatural source they believe in.

"Our muscles will behave unconsciously in accordance with an implanted expectation," Hyman writes in an issue of The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. "What makes this simple fact so important is that we are not aware that we ourselves are the source of the resulting action. This lack of any sense of volition is common in many everyday actions."

To prove his point, Hyman created an experiment with his college students using dowsing rods. Dowsing is a term to describe practices in which some people use metal Y-shaped rods to find water, metals or gem stones hidden under land.

He explained to them that they should hold the rods parallel in each of their hands while walking around a room. Hyman demonstrated how they worked, and when he reached a certain spot in the room, he crossed his rods. "Perhaps there is a water pipe under the floor here," he tells them.

When it was each of the students' turns, all of their rods crossed in the same spot they had seen Hyman's cross.

Then he did the same demonstration with a second, different group of students, only this time, he crossed his rods at a different spot in the room. In turn, each student crossed their rods just as they arrived at the spot Hyman had shown the second time.

"The experience for most students is eerie," he says. "They insist that they are doing nothing on purpose to make the (movement) occur."

-

And for the clincher, a thorough review including links to multiple other sources. (http://www.lysator.liu.se/~rasmus/skepticism/dowsing.html) Unfortunately dowsing has been debunked so long ago, a number of the links are expired. But I would think you'd get the point by now.

[Explorer]

To answer your question, Yes! An emphatic Yes! Well designed studies have been done to test for the validity of dowsing. It's WOO!

Start here. (http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/)

A simple experiment (http://www.idsnews.com/news/story1_modify.php?id=38317)

-

And for the clincher, a thorough review including links to multiple other sources. (http://www.lysator.liu.se/~rasmus/skepticism/dowsing.html) Unfortunately dowsing has been debunked so long ago, a number of the links are expired. But I would think you'd get the point by now.

Sorry SG, it doesn't clinch it for me at all, and quite the contrary.

Firstly, the professor was mixing his metaphors. I am certain that there is an idiometer effect with Ouija (see the other current relevant thread of my views on that), but why should dowsing be brought under the same umbrella and context? They are two completely different phenomena with completely different outcomes.

I am also convinced of the power of suggestion, peer pressure, and whatever other sociological quirk you wish to throw in to the debate, that the professor amply demonstrated using the rods with the students. However, as he stated, he was "implanting" expectations into the students, and a slight unwitting tilt of the wrist at the target point could cause the rods to cross quite easily.

The professor was obviously wasting his time, as dowsers do not deny an idiometer effect. Many say it is the effect of their body/brain responding to fields in the ground beneath them, or the "shadows " in the fields created by water flows or masses. They are not scientists, and we know they are only guessing, and using one unknown in an attempt to describe another unknown.

What we can say however, and this is qualitatively different to the professor's experiment, is that they have no target implanted in their minds before they set off on their track to seek water, and they have no peer pressure encouraging them to pick a particular spot.

Again, I have to emphasise that I am no apologist for dowsers, and I have yet to be convinced like your good self, but your case above is a classic example of what is wrong with experiments that are designed solely to bring about a predetermined outcome.

To take our friend Mr Randi's comment on your "start here" link

"Excuses, Excuses
Each dowser goes away from any trial of their powers, dismayed by their failure, puzzled at the reasons for the failure, "

This is an interesting comment for me, as it encapsulates the whole enigma of dowsing and dowser's claim. These people are totally convinced of their powers prior to the test, and willingly, like cows to the slaughter, lay themselves open to scrutiny, firm in the belief that their skills will be proven. T
They are asked to be involved with the design of the experiment itself, even when a) they haven't really got a clue where the source of their skill derives from, and b) are not equipped with the basic knowledge of scientific experimental design.

I am dubious of any experimenter that asks the subject itself to be party to the design of that experiment. The experimenter has a clear objective, and unless that objective is serving merely to discredit the claims in a predetermined way, he does not need to involve the subject.

In the interests of balance, please go to the following link:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v9n1a1.php

[BPScooter]

In the interest of balance, I did check the previous link.

http://www.scientificexploration.org...cts/v9n1a1.php

My humble and personal observation, in the interest of truth-seeking, felt a bit of a let-down.

I am one of those who requests and requires data, or links to the publications of those that posess the data, in these sorts of things.

Please feel free to try to influence my judgement, but I must simply stand and reply, with the intent of prompting the claimants to provide persuasive, replicable observations on the matters at hand. They must be replicable, and persuasive. That is my personal zeit-geist.

[Explorer]

"I am one of those who requests and requires data, or links to the publications of those that posess the data, in these sorts of things."

..and quite rightly too.

The posting of such a link was to balance SG's links that equally did not live up to your quality standards of the reporting of experimental design and the intelligent analysis of the results.

[Slimething]

The posting of such a link was to balance SG's links that equally did not live up to your quality standards of the reporting of experimental design and the intelligent analysis of the results.

explorer,

You're beginning to lose credibility here. You've been asked questions in earlier posts that you have not answered. For example,

1. I asked you earlier if you have a study design that would fairly assess the factuality of dowsing. You have not replied.

2. Cuddles has asked you how you knew the dowser in your story had acctually planted the flags atop buried pipes. If the dowser had planted flags on where s/he believed pipes to be such that no one dug there, that's not ample proof of anything as the pipes may have been anywhere other than the sites of digging. Please reply.

Another question I'd like to add is exactly what type of contrary data would you require to disprove the factuality of dowsing to you?

Here's an observation for you to consider. You've essentially turned the tables on the burden of proof. Dowsing is the claim made and the burden of proof is on the proponent, not the prospective buyer. Can you produce evidence that would make dowsing at least intersting enough to encourage systematic testing? All you have done so far is given us one anecdote and failed to answer a very important question about it. So, please, if you have it, post compelling evidence for dowsing.

I also don't comprehend how the movement of dowsing "sensors" would not be explained by the ideomotor effect. All the ideomotor effect is unwitting muscle movement which returns the expected result. How is that excluded from dowsing phenomena?

[Explorer]

explorer,

You're beginning to lose credibility here. You've been asked questions in earlier posts that you have not answered. For example,

1. I asked you earlier if you have a study design that would fairly assess the factuality of dowsing. You have not replied.

2. Cuddles has asked you how you knew the dowser in your story had acctually planted the flags atop buried pipes. If the dowser had planted flags on where s/he believed pipes to be such that no one dug there, that's not ample proof of anything as the pipes may have been anywhere other than the sites of digging. Please reply.

Another question I'd like to add is exactly what type of contrary data would you require to disprove the factuality of dowsing to you?

Here's an observation for you to consider. You've essentially turned the tables on the burden of proof. Dowsing is the claim made and the burden of proof is on the proponent, not the prospective buyer. Can you produce evidence that would make dowsing at least intersting enough to encourage systematic testing? All you have done so far is given us one anecdote and failed to answer a very important question about it. So, please, if you have it, post compelling evidence for dowsing.

I also don't comprehend how the movement of dowsing "sensors" would not be explained by the ideomotor effect. All the ideomotor effect is unwitting muscle movement which returns the expected result. How is that excluded from dowsing phenomena?

1. Sorry, ST, I thought I had described the approach earlier.

Essentially, they should be field tests only, the scope of which should be restricted to water dowsing and not other minerals or substances. Secondly, there should be a subject selection process that should be covert. In other words the subject of the observations would not be aware that he/she was undergoing performance and methodology scrutiny. This obviously, would be more difficult and expensive to set up, but in my view, the quality of the apparent performance is important in the selection process. This is similar to the approach that was taken in the dry zone dowsing in my link above.

Once the subjects had been selected, they could be subjected to more controlled tests, ideally using existing field sites that have known sources and exact locations of underground streams, springs, pipework, reservoirs of water. Each dowser chosen up to that point would not be aware that they have been selected in any formal process and each would be asked through their usual business activities to find the appropriate locations of water/pipework etc, suitable for later exploitation.

A criteria for "success" would be established and would be based on the potential of a successful exploitation of the water source from the locations identified by the dowser. Each dowser would be conducting their activities in isolation from other dowsers and would be thinking that this was their normal pro or semi-pro dowsing day to day work.

The more selected subjects found and used in this initial test, the more representative the final results would be of course.

The next step would then be to gather all the apparent successful dowsers together for comparative "laboratory " testing. They would all be aware that were being tested in this case, and they would be subjected to peer pressure and the need to succeed in front of a scientific audience of experimenters. The targets would all be artificially planted, and the dowsers themselves, unlike the first field tests, would be asked to assist and be involved in the design of the experiment. The success rate in this case would be a measure of their ability to locate the planted targets above that of random chance.

Finally, the field and the laboratory test results would be compared for performance ratings.

2. The dowser I referred to was a chap of seventy years old who was commissioned by my boss to find a buried water pipe in his rather large garden. I will be honest and say that I cannot now remember why it was necessary for the pipe to be located, but nevertheless his services were sought. At that time, I was visiting my boss's house and stayed on to witness the event, as I was mildly interested in the results. The chap was using the conventional cross over rods and walked a zig zag path up and down the garden. He carried with him a number of marker sticks that he planted in the soil each time en route following an apparent response with his dowsing rods. The result was a diagonal path of marker sticks lined up across the square garden, and I can remember that it was quite a straight line. Subsequently, a builder dug down along the route identified and found the pipe did indeed follow the line of the sticks.

I thought I said above that dowsers WILL admit to some kind of ideometer effect. I certainly would NOT exclude it from the effect that dowsing produces. The response in dowsing is still "unwitting" it seems as there is no apparent conscious twitching of the hazel or the rods by the dowser. Dowsers do not really know, you or I do not really know the causes of this, but obviously it is the dowser's body reacting to something the brain is telling his body to do, and that seems to me to be consistent with a kind of ideometric response. As the target of the twitch in the field is initially at an unknown location however, it certainly could NOT be a pre-determined outcome.

Finally, ST, I don't pretend to have "compelling" evidence for dowsing, and I have to state again that for me, the jury is still out. However, like you as a fellow member of that jury, I, and surely you as well, want to be convinced by properly conducted and intelligently designed testing of the reality or otherwise of the phenomena. To date, I still haven't seen too much of that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Been there, been done, Explorer. Hunt the data up yourself. Mine wasn't good enough for you.

Just think, prove that woo and you could be into a good sum of money. Which also begs the question, if it worked don't you think there would have been someone cashing in long before you came along thinking you had a new angle no one had yet tried? It's not like Mr Randi's million dollar challenge is not well known.

[Slimething]

1. Essentially, they should be field tests only, the scope of which should be restricted to water dowsing and not other minerals or substances. Secondly, there should be a subject selection process that should be covert. In other words the subject of the observations would not be aware that he/she was undergoing performance and methodology scrutiny.

Once the subjects had been selected, they could be subjected to more controlled tests, ideally using existing field sites that have known sources and exact locations of underground streams, springs, pipework, reservoirs of water. Each dowser chosen up to that point would not be aware that they have been selected in any formal process and each would be asked through their usual business activities to find the appropriate locations of water/pipework etc, suitable for later exploitation.

This is very interesting. Whereas the JREF Challenge is for subjects who feel they have an absolute paranormal ability, you have designed the test such that dowsers are selected by their performance without knowing that they are being tested. What is the purpose of this? Do you believe that dowsers with true abilities cannot perform if they know they are being scrutinized? If so, why can't these people use their skills? Or are you trying to weed out the charlatans from the gifted?


A criteria for "success" would be established and would be based on the potential of a successful exploitation of the water source from the locations identified by the dowser. Each dowser would be conducting their activities in isolation from other dowsers and would be thinking that this was their normal pro or semi-pro dowsing day to day work.


Who would set the criteria for success? The JREF Challenge allows the subject to set their own criteria as long as it is a fair and statistically-valid indicator of a heretofore unknown phenonmenon at work. Since this is your design, how many trials would have to be performed with each dowser and how many hits would a dowser have to get to indicate that they indeed had a preternatural ability? If one of the semifinalists failed, would they be automatically disqualified or would they move on to the final round with the gifted? Given the finalists so selected, how many successes vs failures would you tolerate to convince you that such ability was or was not possible? Would you need to segragate the water sources such as standing/moving water or piped vs groundwater or scale their ability on the depth of the target?

The more selected subjects found and used in this initial test, the more representative the final results would be of course.

How would you counter a claim from a failed dowser that s/he had located a water source other than your planted target? For example, suppose the sticks twitched where there was no target but the dowser said that groundwater was present there? Would you drill to find it? If not, how would you know that there was no water present other than the target you had planted? (Areas over an underground aquifer can be very large such that, on any given surface area, any given point on that area would have a very good probability of hitting water if a well were to be drilled to that aquifer.)

The next step would then be to gather all the apparent successful dowsers together for comparative "laboratory " testing. They would all be aware that were being tested in this case, and they would be subjected to peer pressure and the need to succeed in front of a scientific audience of experimenters. The targets would all be artificially planted, and the dowsers themselves, unlike the first field tests, would be asked to assist and be involved in the design of the experiment. The success rate in this case would be a measure of their ability to locate the planted targets above that of random chance.

Other than the fact that your prelims had screened out the charlatans, this step is almost indistinguishable from the JREF Challenge. How is this different than that process other than the fact that you have selected the participants instead of having them come forward voluntarily? If one or more of your selected dowsers refuse to be further tested, wouldn't that derail your test?



2. The dowser I referred to was a chap of seventy years old who was commissioned by my boss to find a buried water pipe in his rather large garden. I will be honest and say that I cannot now remember why it was necessary for the pipe to be located, but nevertheless his services were sought. At that time, I was visiting my boss's house and stayed on to witness the event, as I was mildly interested in the results. The chap was using the conventional cross over rods and walked a zig zag path up and down the garden. He carried with him a number of marker sticks that he planted in the soil each time en route following an apparent response with his dowsing rods. The result was a diagonal path of marker sticks lined up across the square garden, and I can remember that it was quite a straight line. Subsequently, a builder dug down along the route identified and found the pipe did indeed follow the line of the sticks.


That is impressive. You were there so see this pipe dug up or is this second-hand knowledge? Can you tell me if the dowser was a well-experienced builder or engineer? (These fellows may have been able to discern topographical clues that would reveal the course of the pipe.)

I thought I said above that dowsers WILL admit to some kind of ideometer effect. I certainly would NOT exclude it from the effect that dowsing produces. The response in dowsing is still "unwitting" it seems as there is no apparent conscious twitching of the hazel or the rods by the dowser. Dowsers do not really know, you or I do not really know the causes of this, but obviously it is the dowser's body reacting to something the brain is telling his body to do, and that seems to me to be consistent with a kind of ideometric response. As the target of the twitch in the field is initially at an unknown location however, it certainly could NOT be a pre-determined outcome.

That's a fair enough statement. So, the ideomotor effect in this case would be the mechanism for the dowsing ability. Usually, the claim is that the items dowser for are attracting the sticks so this is a twist. Do you have any explanation as to how water would communicate its presence to the dowser such that s/he would move the sticks? Of course, that's an investigation that would have to occur after dowsing had been established as real and we had a genuine certified dowser available for such testing. That phenomenon would be of greater scientific value than the ability of a dowser to find water.

Finally, ST, I don't pretend to have "compelling" evidence for dowsing, and I have to state again that for me, the jury is still out. However, like you as a fellow member of that jury, I, and surely you as well, want to be convinced by properly conducted and intelligently designed testing of the reality or otherwise of the phenomena. To date, I still haven't seen too much of that.

Explorer, as I have stated previously, one of the very bad things about false claims is that they are almost impossible to disprove. I agree with you that dowsing can only be disproved individual by individual. Merely because some dowsers have been proven wrong does not mean that every dowser who has ever lived or will ever live is bereft of this ability but we have to draw the line somewhere, if only for pragmatic reasons. For that reason, I am comfortable leaving the burden of proof on the individual claimant. Up to this point, there has been no evidence of the factuality of dowsing that even approaches a dowser's claimed success rate. Therefore, as a skeptic, I will bide my time and wait for one to show some reason to take them seriously. After all, I have access to all the USGS surveys I will ever need to find water on any property I wish to buy in the US and I can call my water utility for them to uglify my lawn with orange spray paint if I ever decide to dig.

Good luck to you in your quest. Perhaps you have something here in prescreening dowsers to find some who might have the requisite ability but now you will have to find funding for the venture.

[Explorer]

Been there, been done, Explorer. Hunt the data up yourself. Mine wasn't good enough for you.

Just think, prove that woo and you could be into a good sum of money. Which also begs the question, if it worked don't you think there would have been someone cashing in long before you came along thinking you had a new angle no one had yet tried? It's not like Mr Randi's million dollar challenge is not well known.

I am not in the business of proving anything SG. How many times do I have to say it? I am commenting on tests which I believe are flawed, and am not particularly interested in fighting anyone's case, dowser or not!

[Explorer]

" Do you believe that dowsers with true abilities cannot perform if they know they are being scrutinized? If so, why can't these people use their skills? Or are you trying to weed out the charlatans from the gifted?"

Yes ST, to a certain extent. I am trying to eliminate the possible effect of self-consciousness on performance from the tests. It is a well known fact that sports persons for example, can be too aware of their own motor movements and as a result, perform poorly. Some one wrote a book on the subject once, called "The Inner Game", and I think it related to mainly tennis players.

I have a stammer, and that stammer is always at its worst when I am at my most self-conscious and nervous. When I am relaxed and/or distracted, my speech always operates at best fluency. It is said that speech involves an incredible amount of brain and muscle coordination, so I believe I am a good example of this effect.

I also believe the subject selection process is vital, not only to weed out the deluded or fraudulent as you suggest, but more importantly, to ensure the results will be at the highest and most meaningful level.

"Who would set the criteria for success? The JREF Challenge allows the subject to set their own criteria as long as it is a fair and statistically-valid indicator of a heretofore unknown phenonmenon at work. Since this is your design, how many trials would have to be performed with each dowser and how many hits would a dowser have to get to indicate that they indeed had a preternatural ability? If one of the semifinalists failed, would they be automatically disqualified or would they move on to the final round with the gifted? Given the finalists so selected, how many successes vs failures would you tolerate to convince you that such ability was or was not possible? Would you need to segragate the water sources such as standing/moving water or piped vs groundwater or scale their ability on the depth of the target?"

As I stated it is again very important for the selection tests and the initial field tests that dowsers who are the subject of the experiment are kept well away from the design process, for the simple reason that they won't be very good at it, after all they claim to be dowsers, not scientific experiment designers. I am not interested in debunking any spurious claims they may o may not have about what they think is the cause of their powers, only to test whether or not there is something repeatable and unusual going on here.

With respect, to answer the rest of your questions in your second paragraph above requires a good deal of thought and planning, and at the moment to be frank and this is not meant to be a cop out, I have other things on my mind. However, as I stated in my previous thread, the conclusions would be judged broadly on the initial tests from the success or otherwise of the geographical point identified by the dowser having the potential to satisfy the commissioning customer's requirement. That is how they are successful or otherwise they are at earning their living.

"How would you counter a claim from a failed dowser "

There would be no counter claim, as remember the dowser is unaware that he/she is being scrutinised. They either achieve the customer's objective and get paid, or they walk away as failures and don't get paid.

"Other than the fact that your prelims had screened out the charlatans, this step is almost indistinguishable from the JREF Challenge. How is this different than that process other than the fact that you have selected the participants instead of having them come forward voluntarily? If one or more of your selected dowsers refuse to be further tested, wouldn't that derail your test?"

This part of the test is an attempt to eliminate the self-consciousness factor, and to specifically include the dowsers in the experimental design. The comparative results with the covert field tests then can be used to to determine whether or not historical tests have not allowed properly for this important factor.

Dowsers may drop out, but as far as they will be concerned, this is the initial approach for testing, not a follow up on any previous tests. some may refuse anyway, especially when they realise that these tests are similar to others that have apparently debunked their claims. It is necessary to have a good pool of subjects to accommodate any subsequent drop out factor.

"That is impressive. You were there so see this pipe dug up or is this second-hand knowledge? Can you tell me if the dowser was a well-experienced builder or engineer? (These fellows may have been able to discern topographical clues that would reveal the course of the pipe.)"

I wasn't there to see the total excavation, only a small area, but my boss who had no interest in lying to me said that the mission was accomplished to his total satisfaction. I have no idea at all whether or not the dowser was an experienced engineer or builder, but if he was it would have impressed my boss even more on the basis that he had an excellent range of skills, conventional and unconventional.

"Do you have any explanation as to how water would communicate its presence to the dowser such that s/he would move the sticks? Of course, that's an investigation that would have to occur after dowsing had been established as real and we had a genuine certified dowser available for such testing. That phenomenon would be of greater scientific value than the ability of a dowser to find water."

I totally agree with your sentiments in that paragraph, and I have to say, if the dowsing effect really exists, like Ouija, I have no idea of the how it all works, and could not add anything to the scientific debate by guessing.

Thanks, by the way for your time and the good productive comment.

[Slimething]

Thanks, by the way for your time and the good productive comment.

Any time. You have interesting ideas but I don't think you'll be able to run the test because it would be too expensive and the logistics would be a nightmare. You are right that dowsing, or any other preternatural claim, cannot be proved to be fallacious with absolute certainty and, as I said before, the most practical avenue is to make the claimants come to you.

[Cuddles]

That is impressive. You were there so see this pipe dug up or is this second-hand knowledge? Can you tell me if the dowser was a well-experienced builder or engineer? (These fellows may have been able to discern topographical clues that would reveal the course of the pipe.)"
I wasn't there to see the total excavation, only a small area, but my boss who had no interest in lying to me said that the mission was accomplished to his total satisfaction. I have no idea at all whether or not the dowser was an experienced engineer or builder, but if he was it would have impressed my boss even more on the basis that he had an excellent range of skills, conventional and unconventional.

But this is exactly why this sort of "test" is worthless. As I said before, how do you know that he did not know where the pipe was already? The layout of all pipes, cables and everything else is a matter of public record. Observing dowsers in the wild can never prove anything at all because they could have all the information they need before they even do anything? Are you going to observe their internet activity, tap their phones, spy on them all the time to see if they are looking in books? The whole point of a structured test is that you can ensure that the dowser definately doesn't know where the water is beforehand. Do you have a reply to the anecdote I linked to earlier?

Actual cheating aside, it really isn't that impressive to find things like pipes, because they are often in obvious places and often have clues to where they are. For example, the water main to my old house was extremely easy for us to find when we needed to. The meter was in the road outside and the pipe ran straight up to the house. You don't need paranormal powers to find someting like that. It would be impressive if your boss's pipe was zigzagging across the middle of an unspoilt field, but finding a pipe leading to a house where it is easy to know where both ends are, and usually easy to make a good guess at where the middle is even without knowing the ends, is just not impressive at all. This is exactly why dowsing tests are usually the way they are. Here are 10 buckets, there is water under one of them. Find it. When you eliminate any possibility of the dowser actually knowing where the water is, surprise surprise, they can't find it.

[Explorer]

"But this is exactly why this sort of "test" is worthless. "

Cuddles, it wasn't a test, I was merely relating an anecdotal experience of my own.

Let me take your comments:

"how do you know that he did not know where the pipe was already? "

I don't, but just think about it. What is the most likely probability?

" The layout of all pipes, cables and everything else is a matter of public record."

Only public pipes are a matter of public records, but not private pipes. If it was the former, why did my boss want to pay for detection when he could have rung up some record office and got the info for free?

"Observing dowsers in the wild can never prove anything at all because they could have all the information they need before they even do anything? Are you going to observe their internet activity, tap their phones, spy on them all the time to see if they are looking in books? The whole point of a structured test is that you can ensure that the dowser definately doesn't know where the water is beforehand. Do you have a reply to the anecdote I linked to earlier?"

Cuddles, you are stretching your skepticism way beyond its credible application. You seem to place great faith in books and records of the terrain. Don't you think the first option of any individual or company would be to check maps and records. The services of dowsers are usually sought only after ALL conventional approaches have failed.

"It would be impressive if your boss's pipe was zigzagging across the middle of an unspoilt field, but finding a pipe leading to a house where it is easy to know where both ends are, and usually easy to make a good guess at where the middle is even without knowing the ends, is just not impressive at all. This is exactly why dowsing tests are usually the way they are. Here are 10 buckets, there is water under one of them. Find it. When you eliminate any possibility of the dowser actually knowing where the water is, surprise surprise, they can't find it."

Why did you assume firstly, that the pipe was destined to start or finish at the house? I never mentioned it. In fact, the pipe was a field pipe used for agricultural purposes before the house was built on the site a few years earlier. Local knowledge knew there was a pipe somewhere in the field but nobody from the village could pinpoint its location. If the dowser, who was not local, and did not know which area of land he was dowsing before he arrived, knew where it was or guessed it beforehand, then you would have to calculate the chances of that happening by random chance. Both ends of the pipe were invisible, but both ends were discovered after the dowsing exercise. Anybody can guess, including my boss. His guessing failed to find the pipe, hence the need for an outside agent. Your ten buckets of water test could be such a test introduced into the "controlled" part of my experimental method, if considered valid by the test designer.

Again, and again, and again I say it, Cuddles. My anecdote above proves nothing, but the far-fetched reasons that you cite for doubt, also would not prove anything and add nothing to the debate.

[Cuddles]

Cuddles, it wasn't a test, I was merely relating an anecdotal experience of my own.

In what way was this anecdote any different from the tests in which you propose observing dowers operating during their normal work? As I said, this kind of test is worthless.

I don't, but just think about it. What is the most likely probability?

Let's see, what's more likely, someone knows where a pipe is or someone has magic powers? Do you really want me to answer that one?

Only public pipes are a matter of public records, but not private pipes. If it was the former, why did my boss want to pay for detection when he could have rung up some record office and got the info for free?

I don't know where you live, but in Britain, all pipes are public record. This is how it is possible to survey houses before you buy them. In any case, most things are public record, but that does not mean people don't ask people to find them for them. Accountants, solicitors, private investigators, they all find stuff that is public, but which most people either don't want to or don't know how to find themselves. If your boss wanted to find a pipe it is perfectly reasonable that he would ask someone who he believes is an expert at finding pipes rather than trying to do it himself. I notice you do not say anything about this not being possible, you just say you don't believe it would have happened. Argument from incredulity is not a valid argument.

"Observing dowsers in the wild can never prove anything at all because they could have all the information they need before they even do anything? Are you going to observe their internet activity, tap their phones, spy on them all the time to see if they are looking in books? The whole point of a structured test is that you can ensure that the dowser definately doesn't know where the water is beforehand. Do you have a reply to the anecdote I linked to earlier?"

Cuddles, you are stretching your skepticism way beyond its credible application. You seem to place great faith in books and records of the terrain. Don't you think the first option of any individual or company would be to check maps and records. The services of dowsers are usually sought only after ALL conventional approaches have failed.

No, I don't think that at all. You must be incredibly naive if you do. Still no answer to my earlier quote?

Why did you assume firstly, that the pipe was destined to start or finish at the house? I never mentioned it. In fact, the pipe was a field pipe used for agricultural purposes before the house was built on the site a few years earlier. Local knowledge knew there was a pipe somewhere in the field but nobody from the village could pinpoint its location.

I assumed it was to a house because that is where most pipes people want to find are. If it is not, it would have helped if you had actually told us as it makes a difference. Any other little details you've helpfully missed out so you can spring them on us when we come up with an explanation?

If the dowser, who was not local, and did not know which area of land he was dowsing before he arrived, knew where it was or guessed it beforehand, then you would have to calculate the chances of that happening by random chance. Both ends of the pipe were invisible, but both ends were discovered after the dowsing exercise. Anybody can guess, including my boss. His guessing failed to find the pipe, hence the need for an outside agent.

Did your boss actually check that his guess was wrong? Did he even make a guess or just assume that he couldn't do it? Why are you talking about guessing anyway? No-one else has mentioned this little straw man of yours. Don't you think that saying "knew where it was" and "random chance" in the same sentance makes you seem a little silly? The point that I, and others, have made is that there are often clues to where pipes and things are. Sometimes they will be obvious, sometimes they will not. You have not said anything that would rule out an experienced person being good at finding pipes. You have not said anything that would rule out someone simply knowing where it was already. Magic is not an acceptable explanation when plenty of perfectly reasonable explanations have been ignored.

Your ten buckets of water test could be such a test introduced into the "controlled" part of my experimental method, if considered valid by the test designer.

It is not "my" test. It is a test that many dowsers have agreed is valid and many dowsers have been tested with. Not a single one has passed. Does this not tell you something?

Again, and again, and again I say it, Cuddles. My anecdote above proves nothing, but the far-fetched reasons that you cite for doubt, also would not prove anything and add nothing to the debate.

You can say it as much as you like, but that does not make it true. My explanations are in no way far-fetched, and even if they were you have not said anything to rule them out. Belief in magic is all very well, but this is a skeptical forum and it won't just be blindly accepted by people here.

[EHocking]

Oh, dear. I would just like to absolve myself here. A friend gave me a "salt lamp" as a gift. She explained enthusiastically that the salesperson had told her how it would cleanse the air of germs and allergens, change negative ions to positive (or the other way around, whichever is supposed to be the way to go) and discharge positive energy into the room. I kept it because (a) she is a really sweet person and (b) it does make the prettiest, peach-colored light.

Welcome to the forum, thisninjascrazy.On the flip side, I quietly explained to my mother-in-law the utter uselessness of magnet impregnated mattress liners for curing/easing her arthritis, much against my wife's wishes for me not to be a "cynical, know-it-all".

Still, I have the comfort that I saved my M-i-L $250.

[EHocking]

...
In the interests of balance, please go to the following link:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v9n1a1.php
Betz has been discussed here before:

Betz's "analysis" is one by a non-geologist believer regurgitating, 3rd hand, the summary of the dowser's data mining of the project.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2281609#post2281609

I'd be more than happy to discuss it further as I've downloaded the entire "report" and, as a drilling engineer, can point out exactly how NOT to write a drilling campaign review report. (hint, include ALL well data, not just that which supports your argument)

Also read the Popular Mechanics article (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1281661.html)

[Explorer]

"In what way was this anecdote any different from the tests in which you propose observing dowers operating during their normal work? As I said, this kind of test is worthless."

Very similar Cuddles, very similar. You say that such field tests even compared to follow up lab controlled tests are worthless. You are entitled to your opinion, and so am I.

"Let's see, what's more likely, someone knows where a pipe is or someone has magic powers? Do you really want me to answer that one?"

Oh come on Cuddles, you are deliberately excluding the third possibility, which is there is a real and potentially scientifically explicable natural effect going on here.

"I don't know where you live, but in Britain, all pipes are public record."

I live in rural Devon, and I can assure you that all pipes are NOT a matter of public record. Farmers have been laying field pipes ever since piped water was invented an do not have to notify any authority. I have buried a pipe on my own land when I owned a smallholding, and didn't notify the water board. Why? Because I didn't have to. Only mains services to property are recorded across fields to farms and isolated properties. Any T-offs subsequently laid privately by the owner, are not recorded.

"No, I don't think that at all. You must be incredibly naive if you do"

Your quote on your level of skepticism.

You obviously have a high opinion on your own skepticism, but in my book, it is dubious.

"I assumed it was to a house because that is where most pipes people want to find are. If it is not, it would have helped if you had actually told us as it makes a difference. Any other little details you've helpfully missed out so you can spring them on us when we come up with an explanation?"

Sorry Cuddles. Oh the dowser was wearing dark blue underpants!

"Why are you talking about guessing anyway? No-one else has mentioned this little straw man of yours."

Ahem! Cuddles. It was you actually, in your post above, and I quote it below for your interest:

"but finding a pipe leading to a house where it is easy to know where both ends are, and usually easy to make a good guess at where the middle is even without knowing the ends, is just not impressive at all."

"It is a test that many dowsers have agreed is valid "

I wish you would read my posts properly Cuddles. I have fully covered this point in previous responses.

"You can say it as much as you like, but that does not make it true. My explanations are in no way far-fetched, and even if they were you have not said anything to rule them out. Belief in magic is all very well, but this is a skeptical forum and it won't just be blindly accepted by people here."

When have I said it WAS true? Nothing is true until it is proven. Dowsing is not yet proven, and I agree with you. What else do you want me to say?

Why are you bringing the subject of magic into it? I do not believe in magic, only the hitherto not yet explained, and that is quite a different thing.

I am only disagreeing with the experimental designers of dowsing tests, not with you on the subject of healthy skepticism. In fact, I have to say that your skepticism is unbalanced and limited to the claims of the subjects. You are perfectly willing it seems to give the science a carte blanch approval without questioning the approach and methodology. That for me can be described as bad science and one sided-skepticism.

[Explorer]

Betz has been discussed here before:

Betz's "analysis" is one by a non-geologist believer regurgitating, 3rd hand, the summary of the dowser's data mining of the project.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2281609#post2281609

I'd be more than happy to discuss it further as I've downloaded the entire "report" and, as a drilling engineer, can point out exactly how NOT to write a drilling campaign review report. (hint, include ALL well data, not just that which supports your argument)

Also read the Popular Mechanics article (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1281661.html)

Thanks for that EH.

I did read the Popular Mechanics link and found this, which appears, at least at first glance to contradict your points above. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you take the view that you do on the results and accuracy:

" Researchers analyzed the successes and failures of dowsers in attempting to locate water at more than 2000 sites in arid regions of Sri Lanka, Zaire, Kenya, Namibia and Yemen over a 10-year period. To do this, researchers teamed geological experts with experienced dowsers and then set up a scientific study group to evaluate the results. Drill crews guided by dowsers didn't hit water every time, but their success rate was impressive. In Sri Lanka, for example, they drilled 691 holes and had an overall success rate of 96 percent.

In hundreds of cases the dowsers were able to predict the depth of the water source and the yield of the well to within 10 percent or 20 percent," says Hans-Dieter Betz, a physicist at the University of Munich, who headed the research group."

If you do some simple maths, it means that for the cases above they were given a total of 691 locations to drill by the dowsers, and 663 hit the target water. In other words, it is implying that ALL the attempts were being described honestly, and that 28 failures were reported. If you are still saying that there were some failures not logged or mentioned, then the conclusion can only be that the researchers(whoever they were) had a vested interest in the results, as opposed to merely seeking a scientific conclusion, and were simply lying. Not a happy thought!

[Slimething]

Explorer, a variable that cannot be overlooked when it comes to groundwater is the likelihood of success or failure. Groundwater aquifers can sometimes be massive enough such that anyone choosing any location randomly on say a give square mile of the earth's surface is bound to hit water. Also, the yield of said wells into these groundwater sources would yield whatever the pump would dish out so a dowser only need to know the pump's capacity to predict yield.

So, we'd have to look at the raw data and the hydrogeologic maps to decide whether or not this was a reasonable test of dowsing. Frankly, as cuddles has stated, having dowsers find definite and finite targets placed in known locations is still the best test of dowsing.

[Cuddles]

I am only disagreeing with the experimental designers of dowsing tests, not with you on the subject of healthy skepticism. In fact, I have to say that your skepticism is unbalanced and limited to the claims of the subjects. You are perfectly willing it seems to give the science a carte blanch approval without questioning the approach and methodology. That for me can be described as bad science and one sided-skepticism.

You still have not given a single reason why any of my possible explanations are not invalid, except for vague arguments to ignorance and incredulity with plenty of ad homs thrown in for luck. There are lots of ways someone can find a pipe in a field without resorting to magical dowsing powers. Simply observing dowsers at work does not eliminate any of these possibilities and therefore your proposal to do so as a test of dowsing is worthless. Tests, agreed as valid tests by the dowsers themselves, where it is not possible for the dowsers to have any knowledge of where water is all show that dowsers cannot do what they claim. Please stop pretending to be a skeptic if you cannot grasp these simple facts.

[EHocking]

--

[EHocking]

Thanks for that EH.

I did read the Popular Mechanics link and found this, which appears, at least at first glance to contradict your points above. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you take the view that you do on the results and accuracy:

" Researchers analyzed the successes and failures of dowsers in attempting to locate water at more than 2000 sites in arid regions of Sri Lanka, Zaire, Kenya, Namibia and Yemen over a 10-year period. To do this, researchers teamed geological experts with experienced dowsers and then set up a scientific study group to evaluate the results. Drill crews guided by dowsers didn't hit water every time, but their success rate was impressive. In Sri Lanka, for example, they drilled 691 holes and had an overall success rate of 96 percent.

In hundreds of cases the dowsers were able to predict the depth of the water source and the yield of the well to within 10 percent or 20 percent," says Hans-Dieter Betz, a physicist at the University of Munich, who headed the research group."

If you do some simple maths, it means that for the cases above they were given a total of 691 locations to drill by the dowsers, and 663 hit the target water. In other words, it is implying that ALL the attempts were being described honestly, and that 28 failures were reported. If you are still saying that there were some failures not logged or mentioned, then the conclusion can only be that the researchers(whoever they were) had a vested interest in the results, as opposed to merely seeking a scientific conclusion, and were simply lying. Not a happy thought!No need to do the simple maths - Betz, by summarising Schroter's recall of the project, mispresents the real world data from the drilling campaign.

The drilling campaign was the result of 5 years geological study of the previous drilling campaign in the area. This is stated in the report.

The dowser DID NOT CHOOSE a single well site. To claim so is pure misrepresentation on Schroter's part. This fact is also stated in the report.

Finally, the data is cherry picked - it is not the full drilling data, only a small number of the successes. This is stated in the report.

Schroter claims many things in his account which are not bourne out by reading the actual report. Betz compounds the obfuscation and misrepresentation by his believer-biased and geologically ill-informed rehashing of of Schroter's account.

Note - Betz's report is based on Schroter's account NOT on the drilling records from the project team that carried out the well work.

But you already know this as we have already discussed these facts in another thread, Dowsing for Spirits (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73090).

[Explorer]

You still have not given a single reason why any of my possible explanations are not invalid, except for vague arguments to ignorance and incredulity with plenty of ad homs thrown in for luck. There are lots of ways someone can find a pipe in a field without resorting to magical dowsing powers. Simply observing dowsers at work does not eliminate any of these possibilities and therefore your proposal to do so as a test of dowsing is worthless. Tests, agreed as valid tests by the dowsers themselves, where it is not possible for the dowsers to have any knowledge of where water is all show that dowsers cannot do what they claim. Please stop pretending to be a skeptic if you cannot grasp these simple facts.


Aaaaarrrgggg! I give up! You win! I am wrong and you are right! End of...!

[Explorer]

No need to do the simple maths - Betz, by summarising Schroter's recall of the project, mispresents the real world data from the drilling campaign.

The drilling campaign was the result of 5 years geological study of the previous drilling campaign in the area. This is stated in the report.

The dowser DID NOT CHOOSE a single well site. To claim so is pure misrepresentation on Schroter's part. This fact is also stated in the report.

Finally, the data is cherry picked - it is not the full drilling data, only a small number of the successes. This is stated in the report.

Schroter claims many things in his account which are not bourne out by reading the actual report. Betz compounds the obfuscation and misrepresentation by his believer-biased and geologically ill-informed rehashing of of Schroter's account.

Note - Betz's report is based on Schroter's account NOT on the drilling records from the project team that carried out the well work.

But you already know this as we have already discussed these facts in another thread, Dowsing for Spirits (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73090).

So essentially you are saying that Popular Mechanics are simply quoting the Betz lie?

[EHocking]

So essentially you are saying that Popular Mechanics are simply quoting the Betz lie?Since they quote Betz. Yes.

[T'ai Chi]

I'm given the thankless task of trying to explain - in laymen's terms - that the Pyramiads were in fact built by humans. It requires little thought for them to pull out the extraterrestrial card with no burden of proof, yet I have to explain little details, such as...
...
I'm constantly having to 'debunk' his flights of fancy and to be honest, it's just a thankless task most of the time.


You used have twice in your explanation, which to me is telling me that you believe your role is protector of The Truth(tm). No offense, but it sounds like you don't fully understand what skepticism means.

It does not, does not, does not, mean you have to go around proving everybody wrong, or that you have to debunk people. Skepticism is about *you*, and means *you* don't blindly accept everything put before you but examine it prior to accepting or to rejecting. It doesn't mean you're someone's 'evidence slave'.

[CFLarsen]

You used have twice in your explanation, which to me is telling me that you believe your role is protector of The Truth(tm). No offense, but it sounds like you don't fully understand what skepticism means.

It does not, does not, does not, mean you have to go around proving everybody wrong, or that you have to debunk people. Skepticism is about *you*, and means *you* don't blindly accept everything put before you but examine it prior to accepting or to rejecting. It doesn't mean you're someone's 'evidence slave'.

So, if a paranormal claim has no personal relevance to a skeptic, the skeptic should leave the claim alone?