What do skeptics speculate about?

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Most sceptics will point out that it's silly to speculate about the cause of a phenomenon until you've got some evidence that the phenomenon actually exists. So, for example, speculating about how water might have a memory to explain why homeopathy works is pointless when the best available evidence is that homeopathy doesn't work. What would get them to change their minds about the value of such speculation is, of course, evidence that it does work.

Though having made that point the majority of sceptics will then go on to speculate about the proposed mechanism anyway, and explain why it makes no sense.

This is a very good summary of at least what goes on in my mind. To go a bit further, I would then spend my time on speculating why ideas like this pop up in the first place, whether it be bad science (as is the case in homeopathy) or the desire to gain notoriety, etc. Of course, this is when I have nothing better to do than speculate on things.

At work, there is a mantra about not speculating on things because there are more important things to do, and speculation wastes time when you can be performing work to find real answers.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Speculate about god? Sure why not?

Speculating about god is in the finest tradition, there's the bible, koran, book of mormon, in fact any story about god is just a story and speculation no matter what source it comes from since there's never been any evidence of god outside of the human brain.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I speculate about what Christina Hendricks' boobs look like.

No need to speculate:


http://www.celebuzz.com/2011-12-13/c...-party-photos/


ETA: do not scroll down at work.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

At work, there is a mantra about not speculating on things because there are more important things to do, and speculation wastes time when you can be performing work to find real answers.

I speculate all the time at work. Only I call it "formulating working hypotheses".

Originally Posted by eijah

I doubt if you or mostvother skeptics here speculate about God.

This is simply false. A universe that included a god would be vastly different from our current one, and it's fun to on occasion try to figure out what those differences would be. And fantasy is ubiquitous enough that most of us have wondered "What would it be like to be an elf in Middle-Earth?" or "How would I live in Tamriell?" As both of those worlds include gods, we therefore would be speculating about gods.

[Craig4]

Lots of things, I have eclectic interests. I just know my speculations wouldn't amount to much without evidence to back them up.

[Resume]

This thread brings to mind Hitchens playing What If on that awful Todd Freil's radio show.

[Bikewer]

I like to speculate about cosmology. Multiple universes, infinity, eternity... All that sort of thing.
As I'm essentially "innumerate", I can't claim any deep understanding of these rather heady subjects.

[jakesteele]

QUOTE=eijah;8240257]And what are they unwilling to speculate about?

nothing, that's like trying to get a rock to change its sex.


And what gets them to change their mind about what is worthy of speculation?

nothing, that's like trying to get a rock to change its sex.
[/quote]

[Correa Neto]

First, the divide between speculation and fiction is a wide gray area. I can, for example speculate about fiction, such as who would win a combat between the Enterprise and an Imperial Star Destroyer (*).

Second, context is important. What's the context? For fun or a more serious debate?

Most of us, if its a more serious and science-oriented debate, will consider useless, a waste of time to speculate on the causes of X if one can not first demonstrate X has reasonable chances of being real. However, if its a philosophy- or fiction-oriented debate this might change. You must also be warned that due to previous experiences, skeptics here may be reticent to engage in speculations and debates in cases where it seems the question was posed as a deception tactic. Example: "you even refuse to speculate about it, therefore you are close-minded".

Personally, I find it is very useful, when debating or thinking about fringe subjects claims, to first speculate along the following lines: "Lets suppose X is real. What would we expect to see in this case?" Usually there's no need to pass to the second stage, speculate on what could cause X.

By the way, when you wrote "I doubt if you or mostvother skeptics here speculate about God", you exposed your ignorance and possibly a prejudice about us. Read the Religion and Philosophy section and you will see you are wrong.


(*) The Enterprise, of course, even if its the TOS Enterprise.

[JoeBentley]

I think skeptics can speculate as easily as easily as anyone else, we're just less likely to confuse "speculation" for "making up an answer in search of a question."

I fear the OP mean might mean "speculation" the same way so many Woo Slingers seem to mean when they say "philosophy" as a on call license to make crap up and not be called on it.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by tsig

No need to speculate:


http://www.celebuzz.com/2011-12-13/c...-party-photos/


ETA: do not scroll down at work.

I meant without all that fabric in the way.

Mind you, I have to say that this is my favourite celeb photo ever posted under the banner of "isn't she hot?": http://cdn03.cdnwp.celebuzz.com/wp-c...-4-435x580.jpg

It's normally the type they use in order to say "drunk again!"

[eijah]

Originally Posted by wheunis

If what you claim is reproducible, verifiable, and offers any merit worthy of discussion...
I have quite a lot of time on my hands right now. Have at it!

Always reproducible? Always verifiable? Always worthy of discussion -- and by whom? I submit to you that your criteria can at times greatly limit what is speculated by skeptics as compared with less skeptical folk.

While, of course, the above criteria of yours can avoid much wasted time and energy, I think it is reasonable to add that your criteria can and does at times cut off significant and often surprising and counter-intuitive discoveries in all sorts in avenues of science, mathematics, politics... and even religion. All of the histories of each have examples. For example, a favorite instance I came across while reading many years ago the Preface of a wonderful book about fractals...

Mitch Feigenbaum, discoverer of a universal constant for functions approaching chaos... "… "However, there is a second more potent argument, a paraphrasing of Leibniz in The Monadology.which can render this first agument potent. Let us contemplate that the motion we intend to determine to be universal over non-linear systems has arisen by the successive imposition of more and more qualitative constraints. Should this growingly
large host of impositions prove to be generally amenable to such systems (this is the hard part[,] and a priori neither [an] obvious nor reasonable part of the discussion) then we shall ultimately discover these disparate systems to all be identically constrained by an infinite number of qualitatively, and if you will, self consistent, requirements. Now following Leibniz we ask, 'In how many ways can this situation be tenable?' And we respond, following Leibniz, by asserting in precisely one possible uniquely determined way. "This is the best verbalization I know how to offer to explain why such a universal
behavior is possible. Both mathematics and physical experimentation confirm its rectitude perfectly. But it is perhaps difficult to have you realize how extraordinary this result appeared given the backdrop of physical and mathematical thinking in 1976 when it first appeared together with its full conceptual analysis. As anectdotal evidence, I had been directed to expound these results to one of the great mathematicians who is renowned for his results on dynamical systems. I spoke with him at the very end of 1976, I kept trying to tell him that there was a completely quantitative universality to these phenomena, and he equally often understood me to have duplicated some known qualitative methods. Finally, he said, 'You mean to tell me these are metrical results?' (Metrical is a mathematical code word meaning quantitative.) And I said,'Yes.' 'Well then you're wrong!' he asserted, and turned his back on me to terminate the conversation." Note: The preceding is from Chaos and Fractals by Peitgen, Jurgens and Saupe, page 4.

Feigenbaum saw something very odd and decided to speculate on it although he was moving into uncharted territory. The more renowned at the time older mathematician (whom Feigenbaum quite respectfully does not name) refused to speculate about Feigenbaum's discovery because it was not worthy of any of his speculation. Ohm was dismissed as a high school teacher of science for publishing Ohm's Law, etc., etc.

There is a tendency in this Forum, here and elsewhere, to think that I am questioning the value of skepticism, when in reality I am fully cognizant of skepticism's great -- and much needed value. But I am also aware of its occasional limitations. E,g.: What if no one had taken the extra time and quite expensive effort to do the second solar eclipse experiment that ended up confirming Al's theory? Or no one was willing to speculate about some alternative to conventional wisdom of the nature of energy? Thank God, for those who are both skeptical as well as able to speculate far beyond orthodox limits to speculating, in all sorts of human thought and practice! A few of you here, yes. Most of you here, I do not think so. So bravo to the former, and woo-woo to you others. -)

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by eijah

I think it is reasonable to add that your criteria can and does at times cut off significant and often surprising and counter-intuitive discoveries in all sorts in avenues of science, mathematics, politics... and even religion.

Pardon for being so blunt but this is starting to sound like yet another variation of the old chestnut that science isn't "open minded" enough because it doesn't accept Woo easily enough. It is a well trod one but one I simply grew tired of some time ago.

I am not trying to be rude or dismissive here but you have to understand how many times this mentality has been thrown out on this board as a pre-load copout for Woo and why so many of us start getting defensive when it's thrown out for the umpteenth time.

Yes science is cold, it is methodical, it does take time. These aren't faults. These are strengths.

And frankly it's B.S. Science loves new ideas. For all the talk of science being some stodgy stuck in mud idea sink that rejects no ideas the truth is the polar opposite of this. What "new, good ideas" is science holding back? What new, good ideas has it ever held back? And I mean literally held back as opposed to simply not embracing them as fast as you think they should have?

"Embracing new ideas" simply does not equal "Letting people make crap up."

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by eijah

Thank God, for those who are both skeptical as well as able to speculate far beyond orthodox limits to speculating, in all sorts of human thought and practice! A few of you here, yes. Most of you here, I do not think so.

Here's the typical translation of this quote: If you agree with me, great! You're wise and wonderful and probably good looking and great in bed. If you disagree with me, you're a degenerate deformed moron who couldn't think his way out of a paper sack. You may not mean it that way, but that's how it's meant often enough on this forum that that's how people are likely to interpret it.

Quote:

Feigenbaum saw something very odd and decided to speculate on it although he was moving into uncharted territory.

The highlighted part is what makes what Feigenbaum did totally different from what woos do: he SAW SOMETHING ODD. That means he had evidence that there was something to speculate about. This is in contrast to many woos, who either see normal things and interpret them incorrectly(paradolia) or who see nothing at all and speculate wildly based on absolutely no evidence (see any of the various God Hypothesis/Biblical literalism threads on this forum).

Once you see something very odd you have evidence, and it's no longer speculation. It's hypothesizing.

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

What "new, good ideas" is science holding back?

I'm quite curious about this myself. As a scientist, I'd love to hear what my field is doing to prevent itself from growing. As I often tell people in my office, if you ask two paleontologists you'll get three opinions--how CAN we hold back new information?

[wheunis]

Originally Posted by eijah

Always reproducible? Always verifiable? Always worthy of discussion -- and by whom? I submit to you that your criteria can at times greatly limit what is speculated by skeptics as compared with less skeptical folk.

While, of course, the above criteria of yours can avoid much wasted time and energy, I think it is reasonable to add that your criteria can and does at times cut off significant and often surprising and counter-intuitive discoveries in all sorts in avenues of science, mathematics, politics... and even religion.
<snip>

You are of course, correct.
The requirements do very often, at the behest of constraints, lead to the possible cutoff of potentially important findings.

That being said, I would also argue at the same for and against this very principle.
Does it not deem to each person, in his own right, to decide whether something is worth his time to pursue.
And what right do we have, as their perceived opponents, to coerce them into a discussion they do not wish to be part of.

What is to be gained by the quality of work produced by forced participants? Should it not stand to argue that a person produces a far higher quality of work when such a person is personally commited to it?
While this same commitment can often be the immediate subject and cause for contamination, the failsafes provided in peer review and transparency of the scientific processes serve to limit the contamination of such results.

Sliding the gauge to the other half of the spectrum, towards that of the unwilling participant, could lead to a much worse scenario of results.
Failsafes are inadequate in most scenarios where contamination takes place due to a complete lack of (what I have named) the "GAF Factor".
(Give a F*** Factor).


It is then, as it is now, appropriate to look at the example you cited.
Feigenbaum had a subject he wished to pursue. While being well within his rights and coherent to the processes, request a review of such theories or results by this "elder".
It is at the same time well within the rights of the elder to refuse to participate in such an endeavor, for whatever his reasons might be.


It is with that premise, that we as "thinkers" must learn, as Feigenbaum did, that we should not, nor can we, mandate the participation of unwilling persons into our own vested interests.



I share your concern over the scientific generation of now, being unable to address the issues of inequality as it pertains to resource allocation.
Many issues may exist, which do indeed have substantial merit for further and dedicated inquiry. And yet, the resources for such inquiry is far too often refused.
It is however, above and beyond these concerns, for the proponents of the discussion (Feigenbaum) to not mandate or demand such resources be allocated. In such case where the resources are denied by immediately available avenues, the proponents are better served (as Feigenbaum himself discovered) in looking for their resources elsewhere.

The refusal of science is an innate protection; A mechanic for and by the methodologies we hold to value, to shield itself from the weaker of the theories. It is only by conviction, and the never-ending persistent pursuit of truth, that one is to overcome these innate barriers of protection.

The appeal to higher authority will more often result in a strengthening of the guard, as opposed to the desired results.
If desired results are to be obtained, the only appeal considered valid, is that which exists in the fabric of the proven and tangible results of one's endless pursuit.


TL;DR - It is not your right to demand someone debate you, simply because you need to debate it. Seek other avenues when your hypothesis falls on deaf ears.
But above all, the scientific method serves to protect the truth. Not all truths are immediately evident; Yet it remains the onus of the pursuant mind to produce results if he wishes to overcome the protections.

Hope I didnt **** all that up in language...
Sorry for any typos or grammar errors; And moreso, incoherent ramblings.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Here's the typical translation of this quote: If you agree with me, great! You're wise and wonderful and probably good looking and great in bed. If you disagree with me, you're a degenerate deformed moron who couldn't think his way out of a paper sack. You may not mean it that way, but that's how it's meant often enough on this forum that that's how people are likely to interpret it.

The highlighted part is what makes what Feigenbaum did totally different from what woos do: he SAW SOMETHING ODD. That means he had evidence that there was something to speculate about. This is in contrast to many woos, who either see normal things and interpret them incorrectly(paradolia) or who see nothing at all and speculate wildly based on absolutely no evidence (see any of the various God Hypothesis/Biblical literalism threads on this forum).

Once you see something very odd you have evidence, and it's no longer speculation. It's hypothesizing.

I'm quite curious about this myself. As a scientist, I'd love to hear what my field is doing to prevent itself from growing. As I often tell people in my office, if you ask two paleontologists you'll get three opinions--how CAN we hold back new information?

Yes indeed, Feigenbaum saw something odd and investigated it, and brought to something that is both seemingly impossible, yet real.

But I am using his experience and quote to point to the renowned older mathemation, who saw Feigenbaum's discovery as nonsense and not worth a moment of his attention. You can of course ignore that latter evidence to bolster your case, but the evidence remains here now like just any other potential clue that unfettered skepticism woofully ignores in the name of scientific thought.

[JoeBentley]

One mathematician ≠ either science as a method or skepticism as a standard.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by eijah

You can of course ignore that latter evidence to bolster your case, but the evidence remains here now like just any other potential clue that unfettered skepticism woofully ignores in the name of scientific thought.

Translation: Because someone once was wrong, and used the terms we now associated with skepticism to justify it, skepticism is wrong.

Perhaps you're not aware of it, but science isn't some monolithic entity. It's a diverse soup of people, all of whom have different ideas. And at times, we're wrong. It really is that simple: sometimes a scientist, mathematician, doctor, or whomever, says or does something stupid. This doesn't justify tossing out criteria for evaluating ideas as sufficiently or insufficiently supported. This is why science doesn't have authorities, only experts. The mere fact that this story is told is proof that you're wrong--SOME scientists may reject the idea for idiotic reasons, but some will be willing to look at it if it has any merit. You may not like the fact that science is slow, but science is specifically engineered to eventually be right, not to satisfy any individual with the speed of the process.

And if you think science is holding something back (which, by the way, you still haven't shown--you've shown ONE example of ONE guy refusing to look at ONE problem, which isn't the same thing at all [science isn't any one person]), you can always do the work yourself. No one's stopping you. It may be hard, tedious, possibly even dangerous, but welcome to the wonderful world of science.

There are serious flaws with the philosophy of skepticism. You have not presented one.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

There are serious flaws with the philosophy of skepticism. You have not presented one.

Ok, and thanks. I am very open to being shown to not understand what is meant by the term "skepticism" here. So can you enumeratate some of skepticismms flaws as you seen them?

[JoeBentley]

Long story short you seem to be operating under the idea that there's already a predetermination "right answer" that science needs to get to.

Science isn't a method for getting to the answer, it's a method for determining what is the right answer. A very important distinction.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I meant without all that fabric in the way.

Mind you, I have to say that this is my favourite celeb photo ever posted under the banner of "isn't she hot?": http://cdn03.cdnwp.celebuzz.com/wp-c...-4-435x580.jpg

It's normally the type they use in order to say "drunk again!"

The poor girl can't afford a dress in her size?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by eijah

So can you enumeratate some of skepticismms flaws as you seen them?

Yes, but I have no inclination to do so here. The problem is, you came off as very aggressive, and any posts which poke at skepticism are going to be viewed in the same light. I will say that I've never called myself a skeptic, but rather an Objectivist.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Yes, but I have no inclination to do so here. The problem is, you came off as very aggressive, and any posts which poke at skepticism are going to be viewed in the same light. I will say that I've never called myself a skeptic, but rather an Objectivist.

You do realize that by saying you can but you choose not to, you are coming across as very woo.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by eijah

You do realize that by saying you can but you choose not to, you are coming across as very woo.

Since you like your philosophy, here's something from Aristotle that is pertinent, I think;

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by eijah

You do realize that by saying you can but you choose not to, you are coming across as very woo.

Sure. So what? I have nothing to prove to you. You've not earned my respect (I don't disrespect you, but so far you're just random person on the internet asking for my opinion), nor are you my superior, nor is there any obligation on my part as a member of this forum to respond to you, nor is there any incentive to respond to you. In short, there's absolutely no reason for me to provide the information you want. In fact, there's LESS incentive now that I know you're going to attack me for not complying with your wishes.

I've given you sufficient information that you could, if you so chose, figure out more or less what I'd say yourself. That you choose not to is not my concern, and your opinion of me is of less value than whether I eat my leftover pizza or my leftover ham for supper tonight. By the way, this should be YOUR opinion of MY opinion as well--unless, that is, you've read my posts and I've somehow impressed you enough that you have a reason to give a rat's tail what I think.

I've given my reasons for not responding: thus far, you've presented yourself poorly and come off as attacking people. I don't want to be associated with that. I'm not a skeptic, and I won't lie about my views, but I also don't want to appear to be supporting you. Those are perfectly valid rhetorical reasons to not say something.

If anyone wants my opinion it's my right to refuse to provide it. You are, of course, free to insult me in whatever terms you like--just don't pretend it's an argument and I'll just ignore them. But you really should ask yourself: why are you so concerned with what a random jerk on the 'net has to say that you're getting worked up enough to attack him for not telling you his opinion on something?

As an aside, this is the second time you've equated someone not doing something you think necessary with woo. I have a feeling that for you "woo" is a generic insult, one with a meaning so loose as to become non-existent. In other words, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[eijah]

Originally Posted by EHocking

Since you like your philosophy, here's something from Aristotle that is pertinent, I think;

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Thanks, a very good one! And for those here who revere noteworthy scientists...

http://www.todayinsci.com/P/Planck_M...Quotations.htm

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by eijah

I'm more than a bit skeptical about that. If someone offered to prove to you that something impossible happened by showing you evidence for it, I doubt that you would spend any time speculating about it.

Only if the evidence was non-personal and non-anecdotal. If it is a topic I care about and the evidence is validated by real means of validation preferably multiple witnesses and careful scientific study of same in all possible ways, involves physical evidence (50,000,000 Frenchmen can be wrong) that is provided with clear analysis of same.....then I could well take an interest in it.

For example, Brinicles are something I would not have accepted on a random diver's say so - but having seen video of their formation with an explanation that matches certain previously known conditions and physical properties of the things involved makes me accept them and the process that produces them and the effects on ocean life that they produce with no difficulty.

[Mercurial Artism]

I speculate about lots of things, the only thing stopping me from speculating about a given thing at a given time is if I am less motivated to speculate about X than about Y, or if I have other things I want or have to do more (like homework or video games). I speculate about fantastical things frequently ("What if Mars had developed to teem with life instead of or in addition to Earth?" "If telekinesis existed, how would it work in a universe that looks roughly the same as ours?" "If some highly-evolved, magic-seeming being were to try to communicate with us, how would they try to do it and why?" etc.) I like to write stories and imagine and dream, so what I speculate about may or may not be consistent with reality as we know it. There is nothing about skepticism that means you must be a straw Vulcan who eschews thinking about anything that isn't strictly "logical". It just means valuing and employing systematic, logical, and empirical ways of discerning what is likely or unlikely to be true.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by Mercurial Artism

I speculate about lots of things, the only thing stopping me from speculating about a given thing at a given time is if I am less motivated to speculate about X than about Y, or if I have other things I want or have to do more (like homework or video games). I speculate about fantastical things frequently ("What if Mars had developed to teem with life instead of or in addition to Earth?" "If telekinesis existed, how would it work in a universe that looks roughly the same as ours?" "If some highly-evolved, magic-seeming being were to try to communicate with us, how would they try to do it and why?" etc.) I like to write stories and imagine and dream, so what I speculate about may or may not be consistent with reality as we know it. There is nothing about skepticism that means you must be a straw Vulcan who eschews thinking about anything that isn't strictly "logical". It just means valuing and employing systematic, logical, and empirical ways of discerning what is likely or unlikely to be true.

For what it is worth, your answers to my original questions are to me the best here so far.

[sbeeman]

I find skepticism to be an essential and invaluable part of my speculation, even speculation I engage in for fun. I enjoy supposing that a poorly-evidenced hypothesis is true (for example, additional spatial dimensions) or that an extremely improbable condition arises (an area of negative entropy) and then attempt to reason out in fiction or conversation how, exactly, that would affect the rest of the universe.

It makes for enjoyable science fiction but it is, by definition, not actual science. I'm excited by speculative answers on present unknowns, but, to use a metaphor, it is a fool's errand to confuse the shadowy edges of our knowledge with what you imagine to be out there in the darkness.

[JJM 777]

> What do skeptics speculate about?


Quantum.
Planet X.
Quantum.

Mostly quantum.

[HansMustermann]

I don't think there is anything in skepticism that says what's off limits to speculate about. What is in there is to not confuse "hypothesis" with "theory" or "explanation". It's not a theory until it actually has evidence and passed Occam's Razor, and it doesn't actually explain anything until it's a theory.

I can speculate, for example, that God is a computer programmer and we're in a game. In fact, I did so repeatedly. Granted, more than half the time taking the piss, but nevertheless. However, until it has enough evidence and it's the most parsimonious way to explain the data, I won't actually take it seriously. And until such time as it does meet those criteria, it doesn't explain anything, nor have any predictions worth taking for granted. I can say it WOULD explain X, Y and Z (e.g., banning Adam and Eve for abusing the bugs in that tree), but as long as it's unsupported, it doesn't really explain anything yet. Or I can figure out some predictions to try to falsify, but not already take them for granted and go shoot dozens of bears for experience points based on something unsupported yet.

In fact, I did some speculation along those lines here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...90&postcount=7

Or at that, that America and Australia might have been added in an expansion pack: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...3&postcount=62

E.g., I can speculate that Mary was a regeneration-based superhero, the way she keeps being a virgin after years of marriage, and even one or two childbirths. Sounds like regenerating it to me Anyway, I actually did here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...5&postcount=16

E.g., about the possibility of actual parthenogenesis and how it would necessarily result in a female Jesus. E.g., here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...31#post5168431

E.g., that the reason the Hebrews spent 40 years crossing an 1000 mile desert is that God didn't stop and ask for directions: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...6&postcount=96

E.g., I can speculate about an alien idiocracy as a possible explanation for why ancient aliens could supposedly teach so many things to our ancestors, while modern ones can only flatten circles in wheat, cut out anuses and vaginas off dead cows, and anal-probe schizophrenics with dildo shaped implements. In fact, I just did here: "Alien Idiocracy?"

E.g., conversely about how aliens getting the Egyptians to build a big-ass pyramid sounds like a candid-camera kind of prank: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=144

The difference is that I won't take any of that as being THE explanation, just because I just pulled it out of the ass. Unless supported, it's at most good for taking the piss.

In effect, speculation is built right into the scientific method, and really, that's what skepticism is about. But anyway, from some data, you have to speculate about the underlying mechanism. That's what coming up with a hypothesis is about. Of course, the next steps are supporting it with evidence and actively trying to falsify it, but you have to first come up with a hypothesis.

[Correa Neto]

OK, what's it that you believe close-minded skeptics and scientists have been refusing to evaluate, ignore, speculate about, etc.?

ID?
YEC?
Electric universe?
Cold fusion?
AIDS not caused by virus?
Psi?
UFOs?
Bigfoot?
Nibiru?
Atlantis?
Hollow Earth?
Expanding universe?
Ancient aliens?
Nessie?
Ghosts?
Life after death?

Show your true cards.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

OK, what's it that you believe close-minded skeptics and scientists have been refusing to evaluate, ignore, speculate about, etc.?

ID?
YEC?
Electric universe?
Cold fusion?
AIDS not caused by virus?
Psi?
UFOs?
Bigfoot?
Nibiru?
Atlantis?
Hollow Earth?
Expanding universe?
Ancient aliens?
Nessie?
Ghosts?
Life after death?

Show your true cards.

I believe that Planck was correct when he said...

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...ukuDrYBCY6q.99

I believe that Feigenbaum was giving an example of that when he gave an example of that per one of my posts above.

I believe that those here who eagerly dismissed Feigenbaum's anecdotal, but of course quite verifiable, evidence were also giving examples of Planck's view of entrenched science's occasionally observed unscientific tendencies to not speculate on what many who are proud to call them scientists don't want to think about because what they already believe is too holy to risk toppling.

As for your list, you left out Larmarckism.:-)

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by eijah

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Please give an actual example of this happening, not just one person objecting to something. As far as I know, evolution, plate tectonics, relativity, and quantum mechanics all had detractors, but were generally accepted by the scientific community long before those detractors "died out".

It seems like you are confusing "speculate" with "accept" throughout this thread.

[Mark6]

Originally Posted by eijah

I doubt if you or mostvother skeptics here speculate about God.

I did. For years. Eventually came to conclusion there is no God.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Please give an actual example of this happening, not just one person objecting to something. As far as I know, evolution, plate tectonics, relativity, and quantum mechanics all had detractors, but were generally accepted by the scientific community long before those detractors "died out".

It seems like you are confusing "speculate" with "accept" throughout this thread.

Are you saying that Planck did not know what he was talking about, rather than giving his view of how science often tends to work when there are big changes in scientific thought occurring?

And are you saying that speculation is not needed before acceptance?

[eijah]

Originally Posted by Mark6

I did. For years. Eventually came to conclusion there is no God.

As there are so many different meanings for the term "God", would you mind giving your dismissed definition(s)? Or would you rather not say?

[Mark6]

Originally Posted by eijah

As there are so many different meanings for the term "God", would you mind giving your dismissed definition(s)? Or would you rather not say?

Entity described in Old and New Testament.

Also entity described by Wicca.

Did not really have time to speculate about Hindu/Shinto/Hellenic/Amerindian/you name it "Gods"

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by eijah

As there are so many different meanings for the term "God", would you mind giving your dismissed definition(s)? Or would you rather not say?

This quote has been attributed to various people, but regardless of source neatly sums up most atheist's approach.

I contend that we are both atheists.
I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

You can define god anyway you like. The above statement holds.