What practices should sceptics 'stick their noses into'?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ok people, I'm confused.

What practices should avoid sceptical scrutiny?

Should sceptics be sticking their noses in anyone's business at all?

What criteria do you use to decide that intervention is warranted or valid?

[Apology]

It depends on the level of fraud and the size of the victim pool. I'm more likely to pick apart psychics and astrologers than say, Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot fanatics because the psychics and astrologers have a larger victim pool and a greater use of fraud in day-to-day business.

[The Atheist]

It depends on the level of fraud and the size of the victim pool. I'm more likely to pick apart psychics and astrologers than say, Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot fanatics because the psychics and astrologers have a larger victim pool and a greater use of fraud in day-to-day business.

Yep, perfectly put.

I actually started off exposing financial frauds and just added to it from there.

I rate the varieties as follows:

#1 Where physical harm can result
#2 Where financial harm can result
#3 Where any other negative imapct results on the believer
#4 All other unfounded beliefs

For instance, I attack christianity, but not Buddhism, even though I disagree with Buddhist beliefs. Those beliefs are so innocuous that they are far outweighed by the positives of Buddhism and to attack or ridicule them would be petty and pretty damned feeble. I don't agree with Falun Gong ideology either, but I stand and protest with them at the Chinese Embasy.

Bigfoot. What possible harm is there in a bunch of guys thinking a giant primate lives in the outback somewhere?

Why is it our business? Respect for my fellow man and disliking people being ripped off. Plus, I'm a nosy SOB and will ring the cops when the neighbours are having a domestic or when two pieces of filth are fighting in the street. Maybe there's a correlation between scepticism and nosy-parker-ness?

[Miss Whiplash]

Ok people, I'm confused.

What practices should avoid sceptical scrutiny?

Should sceptics be sticking their noses in anyone's business at all?

What criteria do you use to decide that intervention is warranted or valid?

For me, it depends upon the situation. If I see someone in immediate danger, I react the same way I would if someone was on the brink of hurling themselves in the path of an oncoming train. For other situations where my good intentions could get me punched, knifed or shot, I leave it alone.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Don't many of the activities that sceptics criticize require value judgments to be made?

Is not a sceptic implicitly saying 'my values are better than your values' when they criticize a practice based on a belief of how the world works?

Are most sceptics any better than the believers the criticize?

E.g., How much ill-will do you wish to come to the likes of Sylivia Browne?

What are you prepared to do to win?

[fagin]

Don't many of the activities that sceptics criticize require value judgments to be made?

Is not a sceptic implicitly saying 'my values are better than your values' when they criticize a practice based on a belief of how the world works?

Are most sceptics any better than the believers the criticize?

E.g., How much ill-will do you wish to come to the likes of Sylivia Browne?

What are you prepared to do to win?

I don't see it so much as wishing ill will on the evil doer, but helping poor and downtrodden. We are like heroes.
The ones that upset me involve charlatans preying or messing with the minds of the ill or bereaved.
Some idiot spending $100000000 on speaker cables really doesn't bother me. I just wish I was selling the cables.
There are laws against fraudulent or misleading advertising and these can be used against physical products if deception is used.
But everything in life requires value judgments. I would hope that as a group our actions would generally be less harmful than those we critisise.
I suppose we are all busybodies really. So we can also sound arrogant, know it all, and closed-minded.
But then we are human as well.

ps on winning and losing - I don't see it as a competition. We can offer advice based on out knowledge. People take it or don't. Maybe they know better, maybe they are idiots, but that's their prerogative.

Good question though. It's got me thinking so my view might change.
And I think that's the point of these forums. We aren't going to change the world overnight, but we can try and keep the average IQ of the world above vegetable level.

[lolurigeller]

Those beliefs are so innocuous that they are far outweighed by the positives of Buddhism and to attack or ridicule them would be petty and pretty damned feeble.

While from a skeptical viewpoint I generally agree with this statement, from my own experience buddhist teachings do not guarantee and protect people from their own stupidity, dogma, and ignorance.

Ironically this forum is more representative of buddhist values than a buddhist forum called E-sangha which has an atrocious lack of free speech due to inauthentic people and power hungry grognards.

Make no mistake these people are everywhere, if you come across them they are not representative of buddhism (which is basically being a good person in general). It's all about walking the walk not talking the talk.

[Cuddles]

Are most sceptics any better than the believers the criticize?

E.g., How much ill-will do you wish to come to the likes of Sylivia Browne?

What are you prepared to do to win?

The difference is that skeptics don't expect their wishes to come true.

As for what I am prepared to do to win, it's not really a valid question. It's not about winning, it's about education. If someone believes something false, I will try to point out how we know it is false. If they refuse to listen, that's their problem, not mine. If they at least listen, even if they don't change their mind, then the effort has not been wasted.

[Beth]

Ok people, I'm confused.

What practices should avoid sceptical scrutiny? None.

Should sceptics be sticking their noses in anyone's business at all? As a rule of thumb, it's always best to avoid sticking your nose into other people's business. Doesn't matter whether you are a skeptic or an Evangelical Christian or an Animal Rights Activist. Of course, skeptics have the same rights to stick their noses into the business of people they know and care about and the same right to advocate for societal change that everyone else does

What criteria do you use to decide that intervention is warranted or valid? What intervention is being considered? What is the reasonable result that can be expected? What is the cost? What is the benefit? If I think the intervention proposed will be of greater benefit than harm, then I think it's reasonable to intervene. However, I think intervention itself is harmful in many ways and thus the benefit must be large before I consider it justified.

[RSLancastr]

What possible harm is there in a bunch of guys thinking a giant primate lives in the outback somewhere?Obviously you've never found yourself being chased through the woods while yelling "I'm just a big guy with a beard!!!" :mad:

[Phil]

. . . . As for what I am prepared to do to win, it's not really a valid question. It's not about winning, it's about education. If someone believes something false, I will try to point out how we know it is false. If they refuse to listen, that's their problem, not mine. If they at least listen, even if they don't change their mind, then the effort has not been wasted.


What Cuddles said.


For various reasons, I don't like it when people refer to the "Skeptic Movement", because that implies that a group is seeking a victory of some sort over another group or groups. I'm not so much a skeptic, but skepticism is what I do. It's a way of looking at the world in order to make sound judgements about the validity of the things that are important to me.

And in relation to others, I may simple present a viewpoint they may not have considered. But if they choose not to examine the practice in question that way, so be it.

[thaiboxerken]

Don't many of the activities that sceptics criticize require value judgments to be made?

Sure, but their value judgments are rather skewed. If someone values anecdotes and tall tales as opposed to physics and evidence, then they are simply wrong in saying that they "know" psychics are real.


Is not a sceptic implicitly saying 'my values are better than your values' when they criticize a practice based on a belief of how the world works?

No.

Are most sceptics any better than the believers the criticize?

Yes.


E.g., How much ill-will do you wish to come to the likes of Sylivia Browne?

If she ceased to exist, I wouldn't miss her.


What are you prepared to do to win?

Nothing illegal.

[JoeTheJuggler]

What intervention is being considered? What is the reasonable result that can be expected? What is the cost? What is the benefit?

That's exactly what I was thinking. If the intervention is merely pointing out the errors of someone's thinking, then about the only cost I see is the possibility of damaging a relationship with someone not likely to listen to real evidence. The benefit could be substantial though.

So far, only one person who I've attempted to explain homeopathy to has failed to listen and be aghast. (The usual response is, "I never knew that. I thought it was just some kind of herbal medicine.") Once they realize what the claims are, they have all rejected homeopathy. (The one holdout refused to let me give my spiel. She just thinks they're a very dilute medicine of some sort.)

[slyjoe]

Obviously you've never found yourself being chased through the woods while yelling "I'm just a big guy with a beard!!!" :mad:

I have GOT to hear that story :)

[Darat]

Obviously you've never found yourself being chased through the woods while yelling "I'm just a big guy with a beard!!!" :mad:

Told you not to wear that furcoat.

[Darat]

What Cuddles said.


For various reasons, I don't like it when people refer to the "Skeptic Movement", because that implies that a group is seeking a victory of some sort over another group or groups. I'm not so much a skeptic, but skepticism is what I do. It's a way of looking at the world in order to make sound judgements about the validity of the things that are important to me.

And in relation to others, I may simple present a viewpoint they may not have considered. But if they choose not to examine the practice in question that way, so be it.

Well said.

[Ivor the Engineer]

So it sounds like many people here enjoy the struggle against woo more than its elimination.

Does anybody want to live in a world where woo does not exist?

If not, give some examples of what types of woo you think should be tolerated, as TA has already done.

[thaiboxerken]

Does anybody want to live in a world where woo does not exist?


I do. But it's a rather silly thing to wish upon, as the only way that will happen is with the eradication of sapient beings.

[Fnord]

What practices should avoid sceptical scrutiny?

Anything done for wealth or power.

Should sceptics be sticking their noses in anyone's business at all?

Certainly, but only so far as to verify the validity of claims.

What criteria do you use to decide that intervention is warranted or valid?

1) A direct threat to life or property exists.
2) Criminal or civil laws are being be broken.
3) People are being exploited, harassed, or discriminated against for their race, color, religion, gender (including state of pregnancy), sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, disability, medical condition, age, or education.

[RSLancastr]

Anything done for wealth or power.:confused:

[schlitt]

Skepticism should be applied to anything where the evidence is not immediately apparent. It is healthy to be skeptical, it only makes sense.

But there seems to be a point with some people at which skepticism migrates from being a personal protection mechanism, to something more of an assumed responsibility for exposing the truth.

Personally i know one of the factors that can induce this is having someone close to you being adversely affected by woo.
My interest in active skepticism started once i saw the detrimental effects it was having on somebody, who was/is unable to see the damage that living in a fantasy world is doing and will continue to do to her life.
Certain woo is dangerous, because it toys with peoples emotions, and fills the void that they are seeking to fill, with rubbish that does not have any beneficial substance.

[Fnord]

:confused:

Politics, medicine, psychics, organized politics/religion/sports, invasions of oil-rich countries to "liberate" their people, et cetera...

[Ladewig]

Politics, medicine, psychics, organized politics/religion/sports, invasions of oil-rich countries to "liberate" their people, et cetera...

The question was "what practices should avoid skeptical scrutiny?"

[Ivor the Engineer]

The question was "what practices should avoid skeptical scrutiny?"

I thought Fnord was just trying to be funny. Perhaps you're right that s/he has misread the question.

[Ladewig]

I agree with the other posters who asserted that those seeking power or money should definitely be the target of skeptical inquiry. Aside from those, the only other cases I could come up with are holocaust denial and 9/11 conspiracies.

[thaiboxerken]

I think ALL subjects should be subject to skepticism, criticism and rational discussion. Maybe I'm just weird that way.

[The Atheist]

I think ALL subjects should be subject to skepticism, criticism and rational discussion. Maybe I'm just weird that way.

Nothing terribly weird in that, but the OP was asking how far you'd take it.

If your neighbour claims to have seen a UFO and you can't convince him that it was an optical illusion or mistaken identity, do you ridicule him or just let it go?

[ChaoticLimbs]

If your neighbor makes such a claim, you don't ridicule him. You let it go but you don't BELIEVE he's seen a UFO until you have some evidence that this is true.
Instead, you believe he has seen or witnessed something he could not identify. It could be anything, but alien spacecraft is way less likely than Venus, atmospheric lensing, lenticular clouds, the moon, aircraft, a balloon, a shopping bag, a streetlight, a dirigible, a bird, or a unicorn.

I say a unicorn is more likely because it's allegedly terrestrial and wouldn't have to travel hundreds of light years to get here. Unicorns are a billion times more likely than earth-visiting extraterrestrials.

[Eck]

I think all practices deserve a skeptical eye cast over them at the personal level, (though it can be hard to constantly scrutinize ourselves). In thinking on when I should intervene in other's practices, I agree with many who've posted that it depends on the scope and type of harm done. I have empathy for others and respect for humanity, and for that reason, when I see someone doing harm, I feel the need to act. The less harm is done with a public act of belief, the less need I see to counter it.

Unless I'm feeling just plain uppity. Then I might just do so for fun. :)

Don't many of the activities that sceptics criticize require value judgments to be made?

Yes, otherwise we'd never be able to parse out levels of harm as stated above. There's room to argue as to whether we've called any given issue correctly, but there's no getting around making judgements in pursuing an issue.

Is not a sceptic implicitly saying 'my values are better than your values' when they criticize a practice based on a belief of how the world works?

Yes, and again that's where one makes an argument as to whether or not we're correct on an issue, but if I'm challenging someone who's, say, Knowingly defrauding the public with some false medical treatment, I'm more than comfortable in making the judgement. Others can judge me how they see fit on the issue. On different issues I'll have more or less certainty about my judgement, but I do think the above assumption is implicit, and not really a bad thing.

Are most sceptics any better than the believers the criticize?

Depends on the believer, depends on the skeptic. I don't think people are better or worse than one another except through our actions and the harm, (or good) that follows from them.


What are you prepared to do to win?

I don't really see it as a win/lose situation, but as with everything, it depends on the situation. If I can't convince my coworker that the homeopathic treatment they want to take is useless, I'll give in fairly easily, it's their life after all.

I have actively worked on human rights campaigns, put in my time for political candidates that support my viewpoints with and argued long and hard with others when I see an issue as important enough. At the other end of the spectrum, I can't really think of any standard woo issues that I would harm others over. Somewhere in the middle ground I'd personally probably draw the line at illegal activities on most issues, because, well, I don't want to suffer the consequences of jail or a record.

[The Atheist]

...but you don't BELIEVE he's seen a UFO until you have some evidence that this is true.

I thought that was too obvious to mention.

I say a unicorn is more likely because it's allegedly terrestrial and wouldn't have to travel hundreds of light years to get here. Unicorns are a billion times more likely than earth-visiting extraterrestrials.

I'd probably take your billion to one on that, and for the following reasons:

Had unicorns existed, we would probably have found evidence of them so far.

Even in legend, I don't believe they flew - that would be the oil company one.

Extra-terrestrial life and supra-light-speed travel, no matter how unlikely, remain a possibility. Unicorns probably don't even have that escape clause.

[Foolmewunz]

I thought Fnord was just trying to be funny. Perhaps you're right that s/he has misread the question.

S/he read the question as it was written. It was written incorrectly.

The way it is written, it reads as though you are asking what practices (or practitioners) might be wise to avoid skeptical scrutiny. I believe what you wanted to ask was,

"What practices would or should a skeptic avoid scrutinizing?"

[Ivor the Engineer]

S/he read the question as it was written. It was written incorrectly.

The way it is written, it reads as though you are asking what practices (or practitioners) might be wise to avoid skeptical scrutiny. I believe what you wanted to ask was,

"What practices would or should a skeptic avoid scrutinizing?"

I take your point that if you are being particularly obtuse by ignoring the implied context of the question from the title of the thread, you could (mis-)interpret the question as you have stated. In the future I shall try to be more precise:)

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

If your neighbour claims to have seen a UFO and you can't convince him that it was an optical illusion or mistaken identity, do you ridicule him or just let it go?

I think the problem is that by trying to explain that it was probably not an alien spacecraft, he already thinks you have ridiculed him.

Similarly with homeopathy. Once you start getting into the logic and details of it, most people feel like you're taking the p out of them for being gullible and slightly dumb.

Perhaps an approach that makes them think that they have discovered or worked out the flaw in <insert woo practice here> would be more effective?

[fuelair]

What practices should sceptics 'stick their noses into'?

Definitely NOT Proctology. Especially proctology involving hats.

[thaiboxerken]

Nothing terribly weird in that, but the OP was asking how far you'd take it.

If your neighbour claims to have seen a UFO and you can't convince him that it was an optical illusion or mistaken identity, do you ridicule him or just let it go?

I simply explain to him that UFO means Unidentified. If he believes it was a spaceship from an alien world, then I'd ridicule him.

[Ladewig]

I say a unicorn is more likely because it's allegedly terrestrial and wouldn't have to travel hundreds of light years to get here. Unicorns are a billion times more likely than earth-visiting extraterrestrials.

But what about the possibility of multi-generational spacecraft? If all industrialized countries were to decide that this should be a priority, then I think we could launch a craft by 2300.

[ChaoticLimbs]

But what about the possibility of multi-generational spacecraft? If all industrialized countries were to decide that this should be a priority, then I think we could launch a craft by 2300.

Sure, I mean, St. Peter's Basilica was built in about 500 years. Modern civilizations could accomplish something truly phenomenal given 300 years to do it in.
However, where would we go with such a ship? We would probably still be limited to Proxima Centauri and the nearby stars.

Extra stellar travel is still a one way trip for your great-great grandsons to arrive even if you take off now. You just can't get anywhere interesting in one human lifetime. There would have to be a very compelling reason to go.

[Ladewig]

But what about the possibility of multi-generational spacecraft? If all industrialized countries were to decide that this should be a priority, then I think we could launch a craft by 2300.

Sure, I mean, St. Peter's Basilica was built in about 500 years. Modern civilizations could accomplish something truly phenomenal given 300 years to do it in.
However, where would we go with such a ship? We would probably still be limited to Proxima Centauri and the nearby stars.

Extra stellar travel is still a one way trip for your great-great grandsons to arrive even if you take off now. You just can't get anywhere interesting in one human lifetime. There would have to be a very compelling reason to go.

I agree. I was just trying to point out that an extraterrestial planet might have compelling motivations that are so foreign to us that they may think it is imperative to fly here no matter what cost. Of course, then one is left to wonder why they devoted so very, very, very much time to get here only to try to hide from us.

[The_Animus]

I just wanted to say that I agree with many of the previous posts and so I won't repeat what has already been said.

Ironically this forum is more representative of buddhist values than a buddhist forum called E-sangha which has an atrocious lack of free speech due to inauthentic people and power hungry grognards.

This I disagree with though. I have posted in E-sangha in the buddhist forums before and a good number of the people there are very respectful and have a very good grasp of the concepts of buddhism. There forum, like all forums, including this one, have members who are disrespectful and don't know what they are talking about.

[Soapy Sam]

Ghosts are really holograms beamed by laser from Sirius.

Mark my words, It'll be adverts and sermons next.

Serious answer. It never hurts to be a bit sceptical about anything, especially if it comes from someone you want to trust.

[Irony]

But what about the possibility of multi-generational spacecraft? If all industrialized countries were to decide that this should be a priority, then I think we could launch a craft by 2300.

Sure, I mean, St. Peter's Basilica was built in about 500 years. Modern civilizations could accomplish something truly phenomenal given 300 years to do it in.
However, where would we go with such a ship? We would probably still be limited to Proxima Centauri and the nearby stars.

Extra stellar travel is still a one way trip for your great-great grandsons to arrive even if you take off now. You just can't get anywhere interesting in one human lifetime. There would have to be a very compelling reason to go.

Did we call off the moon landing because it would take numerous mayfly lifetimes to accomplish?

I'm not saying that aliens have ever visited Earth, but I wouldn't say that it's impossible by imposing human limitations on a species that is almost certainly less human than your average carrot.

[arthwollipot]

Did we call off the moon landing because it would take numerous mayfly lifetimes to accomplish?

I'm not saying that aliens have ever visited Earth, but I wouldn't say that it's impossible by imposing human limitations on a species that is almost certainly less human than your average carrot.

The problem with aliens visiting earth has nothing to do with human limitations, and everything to do with the laws of physics, which (so far as we know) are immutable.

We know that Einstein's Special Relativity is correct in all the realms in which we have tested it. We also know that the nearest star is around four years away at the speed of light. This means that if you could travel at the speed of light, then the trip would take four years. Any slower than that and it would take much longer.

The trouble is, Special Relativity shows that nothing with any mass at all can travel at the speed of light. Only photons and other massless particles can do it. And nothing can travel faster than light.

The only options for interstellar travel that do not involve very long journey times are wormholes. Problem is, the only wormholes that we know about are 1) theoretical constructs involving abstract mathematics and 2) very very very small.

If an alien race knows something about relativity and/or wormholes that we don't, then I'll grant you it's possible for them to have come to earth. We actually think we know quite a bit about this field. Sure, it's possible that they know something we don't, but it would be extremely surprising. The other alternative is that they have some science and/or technology that doesn't run up against relativity and doesn't use wormholes. It's possible, but again would be even more surprising.

It's pretty safe to say that the odds of aliens being capable of visiting earth are so small as to be almost nonexistent.

[robinson]

The odds of alien bacteria reaching the earth are pretty good.

[arthwollipot]

True, but I don't think that was what was being proposed.

[robinson]

According to some it already has happened.

[arthwollipot]

Evidence?

[robinson]

What practices should avoid sceptical scrutiny?

Any and all practices that are based on lies, fraud and deception.


Should sceptics be sticking their noses in anyone's business at all?

Yes, except for the MilitaryIndustrial complex, the Mafia, Judaism, Scientology, and the worshipers of Allah, those people are too dangerous to mess with.

What criteria do you use to decide that intervention is warranted or valid?

Is there a chance for mockery and fun at their expense? And can they kill you for sticking your nose in their business?

[arthwollipot]

Any and all practices that are based on lies, fraud and deception.

And how does one determine whether a practice is based on lies, fraud and deception unless one sticks one's nose into it?

[Collin Merenoff]

I would let religion slide if it stays where it belongs.

What really infuriates me is when a belief is encouraged to replace something that is factually life-saving. If a healer prays for a patient's tumor to go away, that's okay with me. But if the healer also tries to stop the patient from having a biopsy, chemo, or whatever, then that's putting the patient in mortal danger.

The conspiracy theories about AIDS are dangerous for the same reason. If AIDS researchers buy into them, they will be wasting time, money, etc. chasing shadows instead of continuing to look for a cure.

[robinson]

What practices should avoid sceptical scrutiny?

And how does one determine whether a practice is based on lies, fraud and deception unless one sticks one's nose into it?

I was answering the question, "which practices should avoid scrutiny?". See? Any practice that is based on lies, fraud or deception, should avoid being scrutinized. :D

[arthwollipot]

That was a very good natured response...

[robinson]

That was a very good natured response...

Yes, but your question is also a really good question.

And how does one determine whether a practice is based on lies, fraud and deception unless one sticks one's nose into it?

I have that very problem with many things. How far do I want to poke, without actually knowing what is going on? Sometimes when you stick your nose in, it gets broken. :(

[Cuddles]

I was answering the question, "which practices should avoid scrutiny?". See? Any practice that is based on lies, fraud or deception, should avoid being scrutinized. :D

Which would have been funnier if it hadn't already been said two weeks ago.

Anything done for wealth or power.

[robinson]

It's still funny to me. :wackylaugh: