[Moderated] [Merged] What is a "skeptic"?/Was Carl Sagan a skeptic?

BobR · 2nd December 2012, 10:22 AM

Just out of curiosity, how do the members of the "General Skepticsm etc." forum define skepticism? Thanks for your input.

MikeG · 2nd December 2012, 10:30 AM

What is a skeptic?

It's an American sceptic, of course.

Mike

Daylightstar · 2nd December 2012, 10:37 AM

A skeptic is like a psychiatrist, but without the pharmacological medication.

Jodie · 2nd December 2012, 11:46 AM

A skeptic is someone who never takes anything at face value.

Aepervius · 2nd December 2012, 01:18 PM

Somebody which look at claims, compare them to what is known (science/history etc...) and agaisnt the provided evidences by the claimant, to see if the claim is at least probable or not. Note that I said probable or improbable (or even impossible). Note I did not say "to see if the claim is true or false" , IMHo such binary results are more or less only valid in pure logic/math/philosophy.

daggerstab · 2nd December 2012, 01:27 PM

A member of a specific geek subculture focused on consuming books and other media about how dumb other people are, instead of, let's say, caped superhero comics. As in other geek subcultures, there's a small group of creators and a much larger pool of consumers, some of which aspire to join the former group, with varied success. A further parallel with other geeks cultures is the accumulation of its own lingo, in-jokes and other memes, such as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and "the plural of anecdote is not data".

(As you can guess, I'm in a cynical mood today.)

tsig · 2nd December 2012, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by BobR

Just out of curiosity, how do the members of the "General Skepticsm etc." forum define skepticism? Thanks for your input.

Just the facts, mam.

Vortigern99 · 2nd December 2012, 01:35 PM

A person who, when confronted with an extraordinary claim, examines the evidence for that claim and, if not convinced of its veracity, provisionally rejects the claim pending further evidence.

StankApe · 2nd December 2012, 01:37 PM

knows poop when he smells it

Squeegee Beckenheim · 2nd December 2012, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Jodie

A skeptic is someone who never takes anything at face value.

I'm a little sceptical of this claim.

arthwollipot · 2nd December 2012, 03:41 PM

The search for truth.

JeanFromBNA · 2nd December 2012, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The search for truth.

This.

Castro · 2nd December 2012, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

knows poop when he smells it

ditto (and well said)

Sledge · 2nd December 2012, 04:38 PM

Vell, a skeptic's just zis guy, you know?

Jodie · 2nd December 2012, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by daggerstab

A member of a specific geek subculture focused on consuming books and other media about how dumb other people are, instead of, let's say, caped superhero comics. As in other geek subcultures, there's a small group of creators and a much larger pool of consumers, some of which aspire to join the former group, with varied success. A further parallel with other geeks cultures is the accumulation of its own lingo, in-jokes and other memes, such as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and "the plural of anecdote is not data".

(As you can guess, I'm in a cynical mood today.)

OMG, the skeptics remind me of the bigfoot community with one exception:

The plural of anecdote is the only data.

Jodie · 2nd December 2012, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I'm a little sceptical of this claim.

I'm skeptical of forum members who call themselves a "thingy" used to clean windows.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 3rd December 2012, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by Jodie

I'm skeptical of forum members who call themselves a "thingy" used to clean windows.

I'm sceptical of people who use the letter "k" when the letter "c" is obviously the correct one.

Bram Kaandorp · 3rd December 2012, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I'm sceptical of people who use the letter "k" when the letter "c" is obviously the correct one.

I doubt that.

(always wanted to say that)

Hellbound · 3rd December 2012, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I'm sceptical of people who use the letter "k" when the letter "c" is obviously the correct one.

Personally, I think we should all just get along.

I propose skceptick.

justintime · 3rd December 2012, 06:52 AM

I came across this intriguing double play.
Skeptics are reactive not proactive. They are not seekers of knowledge nor keepers of knowledge they are critiques of knowledge. And because knowledge is never present in an absolute way skeptics can get caught up in endless disagreements. For example "A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As abstract as the law may be it is circumspect in the application of the word "reasonable". But what is a reasonable doubt or reasonable argument is less definable or guaranteed to satisfy the skeptic because the threshold also vary from skeptic to skeptic.
Most skeptics are not in a positioned to make an informed decision or arrive at a reasonable conclusion because the process designed to extract the facts are often steeped in ignorant dogma and the failure to admit to ones own biases.
Skeptics often put the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim. It is not a cooperative exchange but an adversarial challenge. More often than not the skeptic is not an expert in the field under discussion which leads to endless missed turns, so complex issues are best avoided when confronting a skeptic. Which begs the question, why deal with skeptics if even the obvious are subject to

Quote:

a thesis about epistemic limitations and a thesis about suspending judgment.
The two most frequently made objections to skepticism target these theses. The first is that the skeptic’s commitment to our epistemic limitations is inconsistent. He cannot consistently claim to know, for example, that knowledge is not possible; neither can he consistently claim that we should suspend judgment regarding all matters insofar as this claim is itself a judgment.

So the question can go beyond "Why you might not be a skeptic" and can be truthfully answered with "why you might very well be a very insecure individual."

Squeegee Beckenheim · 3rd December 2012, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Bram Kaandorp

I doubt that.

(always wanted to say that)

Citation, please.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 3rd December 2012, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by justintime

For example "A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As abstract as the law may be it is circumspect in the application of the word "reasonable". But what is a reasonable doubt or reasonable argument is less definable or guaranteed to satisfy the skeptic because the threshold also vary from skeptic to skeptic.

Determining the truth about the natural universe has little in common with a courtroom. Your comparison is invalid.

Quote:

Most skeptics are not in a positioned to make an informed decision or arrive at a reasonable conclusion because the process designed to extract the facts are often steeped in ignorant dogma and the failure to admit to ones own biases.

Actually, the process of reason, scepticism and empiricism is designed to eliminate adherence to dogma and cognitive biases. Sceptics are more likely to be aware of their own biases than people who are not trained in critical thinking.

Is that to say that all people who self-identify as sceptics are free from these things? No. I mean, they're all human for one and, as such, are just as fallible as everybody else. But they should be more aware of the pitfalls and be better at avoiding them. And there are other sceptics around to let sceptics know if they are giving in to personal biases.

And, not to go all Scotsman on you, but if someone consistently fails to question established dogma, consistently fails to avoid their own biases, and consistently ignores or resents corrections from other sceptics then, by definition, they're not really a sceptic.

Quote:

Skeptics often put the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim.

Always, I'd have thought. That's how burden of proof works. Logic 101. That's not a flaw of scepticism, critical thinking or empiricism, that's one of the reasons why they're better than any other methodology for determining the truth of the world around us.

CriticalSock · 3rd December 2012, 07:08 AM

Sceptics care.

justintime · 3rd December 2012, 07:21 AM

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, particularly in claims that are far fetched or that violate physical laws.

Carl Sagan did not need extraordinary evidence to spend his adult life searching for ETI (aliens). He just followed his early obsessions with flying saucers and aliens to fuel his scientific curiosity and a rather weak statistical probability based on arbitrary assumptions, hardly scientific by any definition or even scientifically skeptical.

Captain_Snort · 3rd December 2012, 07:24 AM

in my opinion, a sceptic is someone who questions extraordinary claims and is open to new ideas and evidence to change their position. Alas far too many self declared skeptics have closed, small minds and are way more vociferous in what they believe, for example the climate change deniers or anti MMR inoculation brigade.

Slowvehicle · 3rd December 2012, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by justintime

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, particularly in claims that are far fetched or that violate physical laws.

Carl Sagan did not need extraordinary evidence to spend his adult life searching for ETI (aliens). He just followed his early obsessions with flying saucers and aliens to fuel his scientific curiosity and a rather weak statistical probability based on arbitrary assumptions, hardly scientific by any definition or even scientifically skeptical.

OK, you got banned on yet another forum, so you are going to try this silliness here?

As you have been told, over and over, Dr. Sagan was not "obsessed" with flying saucers". He wrote, frequently, about the way credulous people see "flying saucers", and experience "alien abductions", the same way they used to see "fairies and goblins" and experience "visitations by saints".

Dr, Sagan was of the expressed opinion that it was more likely than not that there were other intelligences "out there", which is why he arranged to search for them.

Since skeptical inquiry is at the heart of properly done science (http://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php) Dr, Sagan's search for evidence of other intelligences makes much more sense than, say, claiming that the fact that the universe exists is "evidence" for creation.

Slowvehicle · 3rd December 2012, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by justintime

I came across this intriguing double play.
Skeptics are reactive not proactive. They are not seekers of knowledge nor keepers of knowledge they are critiques of knowledge. And because knowledge is never present in an absolute way skeptics can get caught up in endless disagreements. For example "A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As abstract as the law may be it is circumspect in the application of the word "reasonable". But what is a reasonable doubt or reasonable argument is less definable or guaranteed to satisfy the skeptic because the threshold also vary from skeptic to skeptic.
Most skeptics are not in a positioned to make an informed decision or arrive at a reasonable conclusion because the process designed to extract the facts are often steeped in ignorant dogma and the failure to admit to ones own biases.
Skeptics often put the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim. It is not a cooperative exchange but an adversarial challenge. More often than not the skeptic is not an expert in the field under discussion which leads to endless missed turns, so complex issues are best avoided when confronting a skeptic. Which begs the question, why deal with skeptics if even the obvious are subject to

So the question can go beyond "Why you might not be a skeptic" and can be truthfully answered with "why you might very well be a very insecure individual."

http://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php

It's all about the evidence, just as you have been told over and over on the other fora from which you have been banned.

Foster Zygote · 3rd December 2012, 07:39 AM

Had Sagan insisted that alien life exists despite having no direct evidence, then one could certainly question his scientific skepticism. But he simply followed what evidence we do have to the conclusion that, given the possibility of extraterrestrial civilizations and the low cost of searching, it is certainly worth having a look. One can hardly say that his curiosity regarding the possibility of other civilizations in the galaxy was fueled by an obsession with UFOs given that he was quite clear that he was convinced that the UFO phenomenon was the result of human psychology and sociology, and not extraterrestrial visitors.

In short, Sagan never made an extraordinary claim. He never said, "Alien civilizations exist". He (and many other scientists) essentially said, "Given what we know about biology and astronomy, it is possible that alien civilizations exist. Given the low cost of observation it's worth having a look. If we detect something, that's certainly worth knowing. If we don't, and the sky is silent, then that's also worth knowing".

Reno · 3rd December 2012, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Hellbound

I propose skceptick.

I expect that word is too similar to 'skepchick' for some people to embrace.

H'ethetheth · 3rd December 2012, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by justintime

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, particularly in claims that are far fetched or that violate physical laws.

Carl Sagan did not need extraordinary evidence to spend his adult life searching for ETI (aliens). He just followed his early obsessions with flying saucers and aliens to fuel his scientific curiosity and a rather weak statistical probability based on arbitrary assumptions, hardly scientific by any definition or even scientifically skeptical.

If you haven't read "the demon-haunted world", you should. It's a fun read and contains the answer to your question.

Mojo · 3rd December 2012, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

In short, Sagan never made an extraordinary claim. He never said, "Alien civilizations exist". He (and many other scientists) essentially said, "Given what we know about biology and astronomy, it is possible that alien civilizations exist. Given the low cost of observation it's worth having a look. If we detect something, that's certainly worth knowing. If we don't, and the sky is silent, then that's also worth knowing".

Justintime's post on another thread claims that skeptics don't look for new information, so it is necessary for him to argue that Sagan (or anyone else exhibiting this behaviour) wasn't a skeptic:

Originally Posted by justintime

Skeptics are reactive not proactive. They are not seekers of knowledge nor keepers of knowledge they are critiques of knowledge.

As FZ said, Sagan didn't claim that aliens exist, he just advocated looking for evidence.

Hellbound · 3rd December 2012, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by Reno

I expect that word is too similar to 'skepchick' for some people to embrace.

Hmm.

Looks like we need to think outside the box.

How about "Thinky-type person"?

Reno · 3rd December 2012, 08:15 AM

I am a Scot, but I prefer the hard 'k' in skeptic. 'Sceptic' could be pronounced with the first c silent. Not good.

Foster Zygote · 3rd December 2012, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by justintime

Skeptics are reactive not proactive. They are not seekers of knowledge nor keepers of knowledge they are critiques of knowledge.

No. Many skeptics are driven to seek knowledge. So much so that they are prone to ask "but what if this claim is wrong?" regarding a great many things. So skeptics simply hold claims to a higher standard of evidence than the more credulous.

Quote:

And because knowledge is never present in an absolute way skeptics can get caught up in endless disagreements. For example "A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As abstract as the law may be it is circumspect in the application of the word "reasonable". But what is a reasonable doubt or reasonable argument is less definable or guaranteed to satisfy the skeptic because the threshold also vary from skeptic to skeptic.

Your analogy does not seem relevant. The whole idea behind innocence until proof of guilt is derived from the moral position that it is better that a guilty person go unpunished than an innocent person be punished. Thus, in legal systems that make such a moral judgement, skepticism is applied to the charges leveled against a defendant.

Quote:

Most skeptics are not in a positioned to make an informed decision or arrive at a reasonable conclusion because the process designed to extract the facts are often steeped in ignorant dogma and the failure to admit to ones own biases.

Examples?

Quote:

Skeptics often put the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim.

That is where it belongs. If you claim that a '67 Dodge Dart is orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy, that your god has given you supernatural powers, or that the sparkly rocks that you sell for $500 will cure all forms of cancer, then the burden of proof lies with you.

Quote:

It is not a cooperative exchange but an adversarial challenge.

Yes, it is a challenge to provide sound evidence of a claim. Many extraordinary claims have met that challenge: Heliocentricism, relativity, metric expansion of space, continental drift.

But you seem to be conflating this challenge with a mean-spirited aggression. Are you, perhaps, an exponent of some hypothesis or claim that has failed the challenge?

Quote:

More often than not the skeptic is not an expert in the field under discussion...

More often than not, those discussing any subject are not experts in the field being deliberated. This does not invalidate any consensus reached by those who are experts in the field.

Quote:

...which leads to endless missed turns, so complex issues are best avoided when confronting a skeptic.

That sounds an awful lot like an excuse to dismiss anyone who does not accept your ideas. Do you suggest seeking out the company of the credulous when attempting to deduce the truth of a claim?

Quote:

Which begs the question, why deal with skeptics if even the obvious are subject to

Subject to what?

Quote:

So the question can go beyond "Why you might not be a skeptic" and can be truthfully answered with "why you might very well be a very insecure individual."

Ah, the 'poisoning the well' fallacy.

justintime · 3rd December 2012, 08:17 AM

I keep hearing that Skepticism is a process of applying critical thinking and demanding credible evidence to determine validity. Now they are nice catch words. But the roots of Skepticism are closer to a psychological state of mind than a philosophical approach.

Definition of Skepticism: . A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety synonyms with uncertainty.

Quote:

The Pyrrhonians, in contrast, did not claim that knowledge is impossible; rather, they suspended judgment on all such theoretical questions, thereby avoiding the mental discomfort that comes from taxing one's brain with insoluble problems. For them, skepticism was a mental attitude and a way of life, not an abstract philosophical position. The Pyrrhonist refused to judge or criticize the laws and customs of his society, resolving instead to accept things as they appear to be, without committing himself to any judgment about them. In this way he attained the psychological tranquillity of ataraxia.

ataraxia definition:
a state of tranquility free from anxiety and emotional disturbance.
Why a Skeptic seeks ataraxia or a stress free state to pacify his insecurity, uncertainty or doubting attitude.

Resume · 3rd December 2012, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by justintime

I keep hearing that Skepticism is a process of applying critical thinking and demanding credible evidence to determine validity. Now they are nice catch words. But the roots of Skepticism are closer to a psychological state of mind than a philosophical approach.

Definition of Skepticism: . A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety synonyms with uncertainty.

Source?

justintime · 3rd December 2012, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Had Sagan insisted that alien life exists despite having no direct evidence, then one could certainly question his scientific skepticism. But he simply followed what evidence we do have to the conclusion that, given the possibility of extraterrestrial civilizations and the low cost of searching, it is certainly worth having a look. One can hardly say that his curiosity regarding the possibility of other civilizations in the galaxy was fueled by an obsession with UFOs given that he was quite clear that he was convinced that the UFO phenomenon was the result of human psychology and sociology, and not extraterrestrial visitors.

In short, Sagan never made an extraordinary claim. He never said, "Alien civilizations exist". He (and many other scientists) essentially said, "Given what we know about biology and astronomy, it is possible that alien civilizations exist. Given the low cost of observation it's worth having a look. If we detect something, that's certainly worth knowing. If we don't, and the sky is silent, then that's also worth knowing".

I think Carl Sagan did more than insist alien life exists. He went looking for them!!! for over 50 years. That is an obsession, conviction and wishful thinking all rolled in one.

Beerina · 3rd December 2012, 08:32 AM

Was it reasonable to send ships into the ocean looking for new land? Or should people not bother because someone drew a waterfall edge and "There be dragons here" on a map?

Foster Zygote · 3rd December 2012, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by justintime

I keep hearing that Skepticism is a process of applying critical thinking and demanding credible evidence to determine validity. Now they are nice catch words. But the roots of Skepticism are closer to a psychological state of mind than a philosophical approach.

Definition of Skepticism: . A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety synonyms with uncertainty.

Cherry picking. There are definitions of skepticism other than the Pyrrhic definition.

Even after three posts it is apparent that your goal is to construct a puerile straw-man of an exemplary skeptic as someone who is simply driven to reject all claims out of prejudicial disbelief. The truth (which I suspect you've been told innumerable times) is that many skeptics apply rational skepticism to ideas that they feel very well may be true. Before subjecting a scientific paper for peer review by other skeptical scientists, any good scientist will first subject his/her own ideas to the greatest skeptical scrutiny that he/she can manage.

You seem to be directing a good bit of vitriol toward skeptics, but you give the impression that it is you who have the visceral issues you ascribe to others.

By the way, this thread seems to be in the wrong sub-forum, unless you have something to say regarding religion and/or philosophy.

Mojo · 3rd December 2012, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by justintime

I think Carl Sagan did more than insist alien life exists. He went looking for them!!! for over 50 years. That is an obsession, conviction and wishful thinking all rolled in one.

Nope. While he said that it was likely that they exist, he didn't "insist alien life exists"; he tried to find evidence for it.

2nd December 2012, 10:22 AM	#1
BobR Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 257	[Merged] What is a "skeptic"?/Was Carl Sagan a skeptic? Just out of curiosity, how do the members of the "General Skepticsm etc." forum define skepticism? Thanks for your input.
BobR Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 257

2nd December 2012, 10:37 AM	#3
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,182	A skeptic is like a psychiatrist, but without the pharmacological medication.
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium

2nd December 2012, 11:46 AM	#4
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,896	A skeptic is someone who never takes anything at face value.
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,896	__________________ testis unus, testis nullus quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

2nd December 2012, 01:18 PM	#5
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,735	Somebody which look at claims, compare them to what is known (science/history etc...) and agaisnt the provided evidences by the claimant, to see if the claim is at least probable or not. Note that I said probable or improbable (or even impossible). Note I did not say "to see if the claim is true or false" , IMHo such binary results are more or less only valid in pure logic/math/philosophy.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

2nd December 2012, 01:35 PM	#8
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,011	A person who, when confronted with an extraordinary claim, examines the evidence for that claim and, if not convinced of its veracity, provisionally rejects the claim pending further evidence.
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "One thing we've learned (and the Internet confirms this) is that humans will screw just about anything." -- Theagenes

2nd December 2012, 10:30 AM	#2
MikeG Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 1,529	What is a skeptic? It's an American sceptic, of course. Mike

2nd December 2012, 01:27 PM	#6
daggerstab Student Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Bulgaria Posts: 33	A member of a specific geek subculture focused on consuming books and other media about how dumb other people are, instead of, let's say, caped superhero comics. As in other geek subcultures, there's a small group of creators and a much larger pool of consumers, some of which aspire to join the former group, with varied success. A further parallel with other geeks cultures is the accumulation of its own lingo, in-jokes and other memes, such as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and "the plural of anecdote is not data". (As you can guess, I'm in a cynical mood today.)

2nd December 2012, 01:35 PM	#7
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,669	Originally Posted by BobR Just out of curiosity, how do the members of the "General Skepticsm etc." forum define skepticism? Thanks for your input. Just the facts, mam.

2nd December 2012, 01:37 PM	#9
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	knows poop when he smells it
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

2nd December 2012, 03:29 PM	#10
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,250	Originally Posted by Jodie A skeptic is someone who never takes anything at face value. I'm a little sceptical of this claim.

2nd December 2012, 03:41 PM	#11
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 42,956	The search for truth.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

2nd December 2012, 04:35 PM	#12
JeanFromBNA Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 399	Originally Posted by arthwollipot The search for truth. This.

2nd December 2012, 04:37 PM	#13
Castro Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 290	Originally Posted by StankApe knows poop when he smells it ditto (and well said)
Castro Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 290	Last edited by Castro; 2nd December 2012 at 04:58 PM.

2nd December 2012, 04:38 PM	#14
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Vell, a skeptic's just zis guy, you know?
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

2nd December 2012, 05:51 PM	#15
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,896	Originally Posted by daggerstab A member of a specific geek subculture focused on consuming books and other media about how dumb other people are, instead of, let's say, caped superhero comics. As in other geek subcultures, there's a small group of creators and a much larger pool of consumers, some of which aspire to join the former group, with varied success. A further parallel with other geeks cultures is the accumulation of its own lingo, in-jokes and other memes, such as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and "the plural of anecdote is not data". (As you can guess, I'm in a cynical mood today.) OMG, the skeptics remind me of the bigfoot community with one exception: The plural of anecdote is the only data.
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,896	__________________ testis unus, testis nullus quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

2nd December 2012, 05:53 PM	#16
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,896	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim I'm a little sceptical of this claim. I'm skeptical of forum members who call themselves a "thingy" used to clean windows.
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,896	__________________ testis unus, testis nullus quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

3rd December 2012, 01:15 AM	#17
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,250	Originally Posted by Jodie I'm skeptical of forum members who call themselves a "thingy" used to clean windows. I'm sceptical of people who use the letter "k" when the letter "c" is obviously the correct one.

3rd December 2012, 05:51 AM	#18
Bram Kaandorp Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Netherlands Posts: 2,240	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim I'm sceptical of people who use the letter "k" when the letter "c" is obviously the correct one. I doubt that. (always wanted to say that)
	__________________ If autism is a "living death", does that make me a zombie? If so, that'd be great. Just don't get your brain in my general vicinity.

3rd December 2012, 06:50 AM	#19
Hellbound Abiogenic Spongiform Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a handbasket Posts: 8,911	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim I'm sceptical of people who use the letter "k" when the letter "c" is obviously the correct one. Personally, I think we should all just get along. I propose skceptick.

3rd December 2012, 06:52 AM	#20
justintime Muse Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 739	I came across this intriguing double play. Skeptics are reactive not proactive. They are not seekers of knowledge nor keepers of knowledge they are critiques of knowledge. And because knowledge is never present in an absolute way skeptics can get caught up in endless disagreements. For example "A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As abstract as the law may be it is circumspect in the application of the word "reasonable". But what is a reasonable doubt or reasonable argument is less definable or guaranteed to satisfy the skeptic because the threshold also vary from skeptic to skeptic. Most skeptics are not in a positioned to make an informed decision or arrive at a reasonable conclusion because the process designed to extract the facts are often steeped in ignorant dogma and the failure to admit to ones own biases. Skeptics often put the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim. It is not a cooperative exchange but an adversarial challenge. More often than not the skeptic is not an expert in the field under discussion which leads to endless missed turns, so complex issues are best avoided when confronting a skeptic. Which begs the question, why deal with skeptics if even the obvious are subject to Quote: a thesis about epistemic limitations and a thesis about suspending judgment. The two most frequently made objections to skepticism target these theses. The first is that the skeptic’s commitment to our epistemic limitations is inconsistent. He cannot consistently claim to know, for example, that knowledge is not possible; neither can he consistently claim that we should suspend judgment regarding all matters insofar as this claim is itself a judgment. So the question can go beyond "Why you might not be a skeptic" and can be truthfully answered with "why you might very well be a very insecure individual."
justintime Muse Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 739

3rd December 2012, 06:56 AM	#21
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,250	Originally Posted by Bram Kaandorp I doubt that. (always wanted to say that) Citation, please.

3rd December 2012, 07:05 AM	#22
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,250	Originally Posted by justintime For example "A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As abstract as the law may be it is circumspect in the application of the word "reasonable". But what is a reasonable doubt or reasonable argument is less definable or guaranteed to satisfy the skeptic because the threshold also vary from skeptic to skeptic. Determining the truth about the natural universe has little in common with a courtroom. Your comparison is invalid. Quote: Most skeptics are not in a positioned to make an informed decision or arrive at a reasonable conclusion because the process designed to extract the facts are often steeped in ignorant dogma and the failure to admit to ones own biases. Actually, the process of reason, scepticism and empiricism is designed to eliminate adherence to dogma and cognitive biases. Sceptics are more likely to be aware of their own biases than people who are not trained in critical thinking. Is that to say that all people who self-identify as sceptics are free from these things? No. I mean, they're all human for one and, as such, are just as fallible as everybody else. But they should be more aware of the pitfalls and be better at avoiding them. And there are other sceptics around to let sceptics know if they are giving in to personal biases. And, not to go all Scotsman on you, but if someone consistently fails to question established dogma, consistently fails to avoid their own biases, and consistently ignores or resents corrections from other sceptics then, by definition, they're not really a sceptic. Quote: Skeptics often put the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim. Always, I'd have thought. That's how burden of proof works. Logic 101. That's not a flaw of scepticism, critical thinking or empiricism, that's one of the reasons why they're better than any other methodology for determining the truth of the world around us.

3rd December 2012, 07:08 AM	#23
CriticalSock Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: In a little costwold stone cottage. Posts: 1,993	Sceptics care.

3rd December 2012, 07:21 AM	#24
justintime Muse Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 739	Was Carl Sagan really a Skeptic? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, particularly in claims that are far fetched or that violate physical laws. Carl Sagan did not need extraordinary evidence to spend his adult life searching for ETI (aliens). He just followed his early obsessions with flying saucers and aliens to fuel his scientific curiosity and a rather weak statistical probability based on arbitrary assumptions, hardly scientific by any definition or even scientifically skeptical.
justintime Muse Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 739

3rd December 2012, 07:24 AM	#25
Captain_Snort Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Scotland Posts: 665	in my opinion, a sceptic is someone who questions extraordinary claims and is open to new ideas and evidence to change their position. Alas far too many self declared skeptics have closed, small minds and are way more vociferous in what they believe, for example the climate change deniers or anti MMR inoculation brigade.
	__________________ UKLS - 1984-2003, 2007- Girl 6: Besides, it's like he's an absentee landowner... And, I hate slumlords... ;-) Last edited by Captain_Snort; 3rd December 2012 at 07:37 AM.

3rd December 2012, 07:33 AM	#26
Slowvehicle Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry... Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by justintime Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, particularly in claims that are far fetched or that violate physical laws. Carl Sagan did not need extraordinary evidence to spend his adult life searching for ETI (aliens). He just followed his early obsessions with flying saucers and aliens to fuel his scientific curiosity and a rather weak statistical probability based on arbitrary assumptions, hardly scientific by any definition or even scientifically skeptical. OK, you got banned on yet another forum, so you are going to try this silliness here? As you have been told, over and over, Dr. Sagan was not "obsessed" with flying saucers". He wrote, frequently, about the way credulous people see "flying saucers", and experience "alien abductions", the same way they used to see "fairies and goblins" and experience "visitations by saints". Dr, Sagan was of the expressed opinion that it was more likely than not that there were other intelligences "out there", which is why he arranged to search for them. Since skeptical inquiry is at the heart of properly done science (http://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php) Dr, Sagan's search for evidence of other intelligences makes much more sense than, say, claiming that the fact that the universe exists is "evidence" for creation.
	__________________ "Science is a wall against which we crash all of our ideas. The ones that survive are the ones we keep, but they are still subjected to periodic crash tests." -Foster Zygote "And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar "That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler

3rd December 2012, 07:37 AM	#27
Slowvehicle Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry... Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by justintime I came across this intriguing double play. Skeptics are reactive not proactive. They are not seekers of knowledge nor keepers of knowledge they are critiques of knowledge. And because knowledge is never present in an absolute way skeptics can get caught up in endless disagreements. For example "A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As abstract as the law may be it is circumspect in the application of the word "reasonable". But what is a reasonable doubt or reasonable argument is less definable or guaranteed to satisfy the skeptic because the threshold also vary from skeptic to skeptic. Most skeptics are not in a positioned to make an informed decision or arrive at a reasonable conclusion because the process designed to extract the facts are often steeped in ignorant dogma and the failure to admit to ones own biases. Skeptics often put the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim. It is not a cooperative exchange but an adversarial challenge. More often than not the skeptic is not an expert in the field under discussion which leads to endless missed turns, so complex issues are best avoided when confronting a skeptic. Which begs the question, why deal with skeptics if even the obvious are subject to So the question can go beyond "Why you might not be a skeptic" and can be truthfully answered with "why you might very well be a very insecure individual." http://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php It's all about the evidence, just as you have been told over and over on the other fora from which you have been banned.
	__________________ "Science is a wall against which we crash all of our ideas. The ones that survive are the ones we keep, but they are still subjected to periodic crash tests." -Foster Zygote "And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar "That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler

3rd December 2012, 07:39 AM	#28
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,384	Had Sagan insisted that alien life exists despite having no direct evidence, then one could certainly question his scientific skepticism. But he simply followed what evidence we do have to the conclusion that, given the possibility of extraterrestrial civilizations and the low cost of searching, it is certainly worth having a look. One can hardly say that his curiosity regarding the possibility of other civilizations in the galaxy was fueled by an obsession with UFOs given that he was quite clear that he was convinced that the UFO phenomenon was the result of human psychology and sociology, and not extraterrestrial visitors. In short, Sagan never made an extraordinary claim. He never said, "Alien civilizations exist". He (and many other scientists) essentially said, "Given what we know about biology and astronomy, it is possible that alien civilizations exist. Given the low cost of observation it's worth having a look. If we detect something, that's certainly worth knowing. If we don't, and the sky is silent, then that's also worth knowing".
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

3rd December 2012, 07:43 AM	#29
Reno Inquisitor Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Scotland, West Coast Posts: 1,232	Originally Posted by Hellbound I propose skceptick. I expect that word is too similar to 'skepchick' for some people to embrace.
	__________________ "Well, if it matters not to you how things are phrased, nor whether they make any logical sense, then here is my answer to your question: Twenty-seven rumbly-tumblies in a tinhorn fandango." - Robert S Lancaster Stop Sylvia Browne

3rd December 2012, 07:47 AM	#30
H'ethetheth fishy rocket scientist Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: among the machines Posts: 2,340	Originally Posted by justintime Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, particularly in claims that are far fetched or that violate physical laws. Carl Sagan did not need extraordinary evidence to spend his adult life searching for ETI (aliens). He just followed his early obsessions with flying saucers and aliens to fuel his scientific curiosity and a rather weak statistical probability based on arbitrary assumptions, hardly scientific by any definition or even scientifically skeptical. If you haven't read "the demon-haunted world", you should. It's a fun read and contains the answer to your question.

3rd December 2012, 07:48 AM	#31
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,075	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote In short, Sagan never made an extraordinary claim. He never said, "Alien civilizations exist". He (and many other scientists) essentially said, "Given what we know about biology and astronomy, it is possible that alien civilizations exist. Given the low cost of observation it's worth having a look. If we detect something, that's certainly worth knowing. If we don't, and the sky is silent, then that's also worth knowing". Justintime's post on another thread claims that skeptics don't look for new information, so it is necessary for him to argue that Sagan (or anyone else exhibiting this behaviour) wasn't a skeptic: Originally Posted by justintime Skeptics are reactive not proactive. They are not seekers of knowledge nor keepers of knowledge they are critiques of knowledge. As FZ said, Sagan didn't claim that aliens exist, he just advocated looking for evidence.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

3rd December 2012, 08:03 AM	#32
Hellbound Abiogenic Spongiform Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a handbasket Posts: 8,911	Originally Posted by Reno I expect that word is too similar to 'skepchick' for some people to embrace. Hmm. Looks like we need to think outside the box. How about "Thinky-type person"?

3rd December 2012, 08:15 AM	#33
Reno Inquisitor Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Scotland, West Coast Posts: 1,232	I am a Scot, but I prefer the hard 'k' in skeptic. 'Sceptic' could be pronounced with the first c silent. Not good.
	__________________ "Well, if it matters not to you how things are phrased, nor whether they make any logical sense, then here is my answer to your question: Twenty-seven rumbly-tumblies in a tinhorn fandango." - Robert S Lancaster Stop Sylvia Browne

3rd December 2012, 08:17 AM	#34
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,384	Originally Posted by justintime Skeptics are reactive not proactive. They are not seekers of knowledge nor keepers of knowledge they are critiques of knowledge. No. Many skeptics are driven to seek knowledge. So much so that they are prone to ask "but what if this claim is wrong?" regarding a great many things. So skeptics simply hold claims to a higher standard of evidence than the more credulous. Quote: And because knowledge is never present in an absolute way skeptics can get caught up in endless disagreements. For example "A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As abstract as the law may be it is circumspect in the application of the word "reasonable". But what is a reasonable doubt or reasonable argument is less definable or guaranteed to satisfy the skeptic because the threshold also vary from skeptic to skeptic. Your analogy does not seem relevant. The whole idea behind innocence until proof of guilt is derived from the moral position that it is better that a guilty person go unpunished than an innocent person be punished. Thus, in legal systems that make such a moral judgement, skepticism is applied to the charges leveled against a defendant. Quote: Most skeptics are not in a positioned to make an informed decision or arrive at a reasonable conclusion because the process designed to extract the facts are often steeped in ignorant dogma and the failure to admit to ones own biases. Examples? Quote: Skeptics often put the burden of proof on the one who makes the claim. That is where it belongs. If you claim that a '67 Dodge Dart is orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy, that your god has given you supernatural powers, or that the sparkly rocks that you sell for $500 will cure all forms of cancer, then the burden of proof lies with you. Quote: It is not a cooperative exchange but an adversarial challenge. Yes, it is a challenge to provide sound evidence of a claim. Many extraordinary claims have met that challenge: Heliocentricism, relativity, metric expansion of space, continental drift. But you seem to be conflating this challenge with a mean-spirited aggression. Are you, perhaps, an exponent of some hypothesis or claim that has failed the challenge? Quote: More often than not the skeptic is not an expert in the field under discussion... More often than not, those discussing any subject are not experts in the field being deliberated. This does not invalidate any consensus reached by those who are experts in the field. Quote: ...which leads to endless missed turns, so complex issues are best avoided when confronting a skeptic. That sounds an awful lot like an excuse to dismiss anyone who does not accept your ideas. Do you suggest seeking out the company of the credulous when attempting to deduce the truth of a claim? Quote: Which begs the question, why deal with skeptics if even the obvious are subject to Subject to what? Quote: So the question can go beyond "Why you might not be a skeptic" and can be truthfully answered with "why you might very well be a very insecure individual." Ah, the 'poisoning the well' fallacy.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

3rd December 2012, 08:17 AM	#35
justintime Muse Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 739	Is scientific skepticism really rationalism? I keep hearing that Skepticism is a process of applying critical thinking and demanding credible evidence to determine validity. Now they are nice catch words. But the roots of Skepticism are closer to a psychological state of mind than a philosophical approach. Definition of Skepticism: . A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety synonyms with uncertainty. Quote: The Pyrrhonians, in contrast, did not claim that knowledge is impossible; rather, they suspended judgment on all such theoretical questions, thereby avoiding the mental discomfort that comes from taxing one's brain with insoluble problems. For them, skepticism was a mental attitude and a way of life, not an abstract philosophical position. The Pyrrhonist refused to judge or criticize the laws and customs of his society, resolving instead to accept things as they appear to be, without committing himself to any judgment about them. In this way he attained the psychological tranquillity of ataraxia. ataraxia definition: a state of tranquility free from anxiety and emotional disturbance. Why a Skeptic seeks ataraxia or a stress free state to pacify his insecurity, uncertainty or doubting attitude.
justintime Muse Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 739