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

[StankApe]

I don't seem to recall the UFO's or alien spacecraft in Contact. I DO seem to recall that it was speculative fiction about HOW an actual contact with ETI MIGHT go down, if it ever occurred.

Plus, it was, as you said,FICTION

[Neutiquam Erro]

Originally Posted by justintime

And he also wrote Contact which was all about UFOs, alien spacecraft and alien encounters. Here he is pandering to the so called irrational and trying to profit from it after he claimed to be a Skeptic of UFOs. It is hard to be a scientist and not indulge in some wild speculations or vicariously live in fiction, what the real world cannot provide, except in fantasy land.

Am I mistaken, or was Contact a work of fiction? I was unaware that only "believers" can create, or consume, such entertaining speculations.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by justintime

I am not erecting a strawman. I am relating what Carl Sagan actually did.

No, you are not. You are grossly mischaracterising what he actually did.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by justintime

And he also wrote Contact which was all about UFOs, alien spacecraft and alien encounters.

That's item 23 and 20 points.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

SOCK or TROLL or SOCROLL?

Just asking.

[justintime]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

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.


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.


Examples?


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.


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?


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.


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?


Subject to what?


Ah, the 'poisoning the well' fallacy.

Too many points to deal with in one post. The point raise in the legal system was the play on the line "beyond a reasonable doubt." So Skeptics are entitled to their doubts but are they reasonable and what is their threshold for accepting evidence because it appears very subjective from one Skeptic to another.

Skeptics are about debunking claims. According to Brian Dunning Skeptics are also Ghost believers and many are deeply religious. So what have they debunked?

Skeptics are not experts in the field they criticize. This was a follow up to the notion that Skeptics are critical thinkers and evidence based directed. But critical thinking is a university level course often introduced in undergraduate courses and most Skeptics are not at that level of education on Skeptics forums (no offense intended). So much that is debated by Skeptics are really outside their scope.

Which brings us to extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. How many Skeptics can even raise to the level of understanding extraordinary evidence when they are barley coping with ordinary problems. I cited an example of a skeptic scientist Richard Muller who rejected climate change results because he was skeptical of its results even though it was peer reviewed research. He conducted his own research and came to the same conclusion. His research was denied peer review but Richard Muller announced he was now a climate change believer based on his own research which was a peer rejected study versus a peer reviewed one that he earlier denounced.
So Skepticism is really a state of mind a psychological attribute of insecure individuals.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by justintime

Skeptics are not experts in the field they criticize.

A nice sweeping generalisation.

[StankApe]

driving a race car isn't hard because my grandmother drove a volkswagen to work every day and she had emphysema .

This is what you come at us with?

to dumb it down for you: "I have cherry picked two examples of some possible hypocrisy that I may have interpreted in the world of skeptics, and since you are all dumb stinky toot heads who never got out of kindergarten, you are in no way qualified to call my ridiculous woo that I love and cherish so very very much ridiculous. so neener!"


this is what you are saying, and it's wrong, and you either don't know what a skeptic is or are trolling due to getting the smack down put on you by a clever skeptic.

either way, you are just looking more and more foolish.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by justintime

Your logic is totally flawed.
1. If he did not think aliens were a threat why did he write to the Sectary of State concerned if they were prepared for an alien attack.

How do you kow he was concerned. He simply asked the question.

Quote:

3. It is dumb to say he was looking for the evidence of ETI but did not believe in them. In fact you got it backwards. He had to know what he was looking for. He had to tell people who were funding him what he was looking for and also convince them of the chance/probability of finding them after he convinced himself.

It would be even more dumb if you went looking for evidence of something you didn't believe in.

Surely, in ANY scientific endeavour you first must have an interest in the field, then you come up with a proposition, then you search for the evidence to support that proposition. IF extraordinary claims quire extraordinary evidence then you LOOK for that extraordinary evidence first

There is no conflict between believing intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, while at the same time believing that UFOs/Flying Saucers have nothing whatever to do with that life. This is my belief and I would imagine that near 100% of the genuine sceptic posters on this forum would believe the same thing, and that is what Carl Sagan also believed.

IIRC, in an episode of Cosmos, he analysed Frank Drake's famous equation and came to two different conclusions; that intelligent civilisations might be teeming throughout our Galaxy, or, there may only be four, and our chances of finding them were remote. So the only thing to do was to get more accurate variables, and there are not many ways to do that other than searching for evidence that they exist, and that planets are not unique to us.

In Carl Sagan's time as a younger man, there had been no Voyager missions, or Mars rovers. There was no evidence of liquid water on any other planet than the Earth, but there was an abundance of the elements required for life (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen) observable throughout the universe no matter where we looked. The evidence that there that the OUGHT to be life. It is reasonable to assume that if the basic elements where everywhere then life was everywhere. Now, we know that there are other places in our very solar system that have liquid water, Mars, Callisto & Europa ate least, and there is now considered the possibility of life existing elsewhere in our solar system.

Also,at that time there had not been any extrasolar planets discovered. We now know of at least 750 extrasolar planets. If our theories about solar system formation are correct, then stars have planets as naturally as cats have kittens.

The search for extrasolar planets, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence are genuine, bona-fide scientific researches than will help to refine the Drake Equation and tell us, not IF there are intelligent civilisations throughout the Cosmos, but HOW MANY there are. There is no need to be obsessed with the idea in order to believe it is true.

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by justintime

Your logic is totally flawed.

As usual, I suspect, rather, it is your habitual carelessness with truth, which you have demonstrated on this very topic in other fora, which may be the problem.

Originally Posted by justintime

1. If he did not think aliens were a threat why did he write to the Sectary of State concerned if they were prepared for an alien attack.

As I personally, and others, on other fora, have pointed out to you, Sagan was 17 years old when he wrote the letter to which you refer. As I poiinted out to you in post #18, above, and on another forum, the young Sagan did not claim that the fad of "UFO sightings" did, in fat, indicate a threat form "aliens". Rather, Sagan, perhaps brashly, asked Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State at the time, how the United Staes would respond if, in fact, "UFOs" actually did turn out to be of alien origin (a reasonable question). You really might want to read the actual letter, for comprehension.

Originally Posted by justintime

In fact he is not alone in thinking aliens are threatening. Stephen Hawkins is another scientist who warns of making contact with aliens because they might not have altruistic intentions.

Dr. Hawking (you might want to get his name right) is, in fact, of the opinion that "interacting with" "intelligent alien life forms" might be "too risky", especailly extrapolating how the only intelligent life form we know has treated its own members in historic "first contact" situations. As a matter of fact, Dr. Hawking lists being attacked by intelligent alien life forms as "just one of the dismaying possibilities in the search for intelligent life beyond Earth".
Can you demonstrate that Dr. Hawking's speculation is, in fact, misplaced?

Originally Posted by justintime

2. Nothing has been explained to me. You are the one asking the questions.

Your decision to ignore what has been said to you does not change the fact that I , personally have, and at least one other person to my knowledge has, explained this very issue about the young Sagan's letter in another forum.

Originally Posted by justintime

3. It is dumb to say he was looking for the evidence of ETI but did not believe in them. In fact you got it backwards. He had to know what he was looking for. He had to tell people who were funding him what he was looking for and also convince them of the chance/probability of finding them after he convinced himself. He had to make them believe they exists. All this even before he started looking for them or as you like to say evidence of them. The evidence of ETI would go a long way to validate his beliefs and convictions of their existence. Just like the results of a scientific research can confirm or invalidate the hypothesis.

Your ad hom is noted. Your claim that Dr. Sagan " had to make them believe they exists" demonstrates that you really do not understand how science works (and are not overconcerned with accuracy, but that is another issue)
I am curious what you think scientists should look for, or study, if it is wrong to look for evidence of something for which evidence does has not (yet) been found.

But, by all means, continue to pretend that your personal disapproval of Dr, Sagan demonstrates something significant about skeptics.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by justintime

Which brings us to extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. How many Skeptics can even raise to the level of understanding extraordinary evidence when they are barley coping with ordinary problems. I cited an example of a skeptic scientist Richard Muller who rejected climate change results because he was skeptical of its results even though it was peer reviewed research. He conducted his own research and came to the same conclusion. His research was denied peer review but Richard Muller announced he was now a climate change believer based on his own research which was a peer rejected study versus a peer reviewed one that he earlier denounced.
So Skepticism is really a state of mind a psychological attribute of insecure individuals.

He was skeptical about something, so he did his own research and concluded that it was correct.

And you think that's a problem for skepticism.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by justintime

Which brings us to extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. How many Skeptics can even raise to the level of understanding extraordinary evidence when they are barley coping with ordinary problems. I cited an example of a skeptic scientist Richard Muller who rejected climate change results because he was skeptical of its results even though it was peer reviewed research. He conducted his own research and came to the same conclusion. His research was denied peer review but Richard Muller announced he was now a climate change believer based on his own research which was a peer rejected study versus a peer reviewed one that he earlier denounced.
So Skepticism is really a state of mind a psychological attribute of insecure individuals.

By the way, you have now added a non-sequitur to your well poisoning.

[justintime]

Originally Posted by StankApe

BTW, Sagan was 17 when he wrote that letter to the DOD about aliens. But you probably knew that and hoped we wouldn't....

He stated clearly that he found it very possible for ETI to exist, but he did not say that he "believed hey existed". He clearly states in one of his books that he thinks that UFO's were a construct of The Cold War, and that both sides used this fear as a tool of propaganda.


so, in other words, you have nothing but accusations, and no evidence to back it up. (except trying to wash over an esteemed scientists entire career with the fact that when he was 17 he was interested in UFOs enough to write a letter to the Gubbmint.)

But that is exactly the point. At 17 Carl Sagan believe in flying saucers and aliens. And took it seriously enough to write to the Sectary of State. Later he became a skeptic of UFOs as it is mentioned in his biographies. But he did not lose his obsession with aliens. He spend the rest of his life looking for extraterrestrial intelligent life or aliens. That is a super sized obsession.

Definition of Extraterrestrial: originating, existing, or occurring outside the earth or its atmosphere.
Aliens as everyone knows are extraterrestrial.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by justintime

Stephen Hawkins is another scientist who warns of making contact with aliens because they might not have altruistic intentions.

5 points.

[ravdin]

Originally Posted by justintime

And he also wrote Contact which was all about UFOs, alien spacecraft and alien encounters. Here he is pandering to the so called irrational and trying to profit from it after he claimed to be a Skeptic of UFOs. It is hard to be a scientist and not indulge in some wild speculations or vicariously live in fiction, what the real world cannot provide, except in fantasy land.

Contact is a novel, and maybe you might want to read it before you claim it's pandering to the irrational. Since when are scientists not allowed to use their imaginations?

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by justintime

But that is exactly the point. At 17 Carl Sagan believe in flying saucers and aliens. And took it seriously enough to write to the Sectary of State. Later he became a skeptic of UFOs as it is mentioned in his biographies. But he did not lose his obsession with aliens. He spend the rest of his life looking for extraterrestrial intelligent life or aliens. That is a super sized obsession.

How is that an obsession?

Do you or do you not agree that looking for things is how you find out if things exist?

[SumDood]

If I spend time researching whether there is nitrogen in the atmosphere of Mars does it mean that I believe nitrogen exists in the atmosphere of Mars?

[Loss Leader]

I'm going to go on the record as stating that anything with Tom Skerritt in it is a documentary. Anything with Tom Skerritt and David Morse is literally and universally true in every social and moral framework.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by SumDood

If I spend time researching whether there is nitrogen in the atmosphere of Mars does it mean that I believe nitrogen exists in the atmosphere of Mars?

Apparently it does. It also means you have a super-sized obsession.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by justintime

Your logic is totally flawed.
1. If he did not think aliens were a threat why did he write to the Sectary of State concerned if they were prepared for an alien attack.

You know Steven Hawking has also spoken about aliens as well right and said that if we meet them it will most likely be bad and we might want to stop looking? No wait let me guess, he isnt a skeptic either.

[justintime]

Originally Posted by StankApe

I don't seem to recall the UFO's or alien spacecraft in Contact. I DO seem to recall that it was speculative fiction about HOW an actual contact with ETI MIGHT go down, if it ever occurred.

Plus, it was, as you said,FICTION

The information received contained the blueprint for a spacecraft. The spacecraft was built from that blueprint and used to contact the aliens.
Yes, it was a piece of fiction written and marketed at the same time he was also denouncing UFOs and alien encounters. Sounds hypocritical.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by justintime

But that is exactly the point. At 17 Carl Sagan believe in considered the possibility that flying saucers and aliens exist. And took it seriously enough to write to the Sectary of State and ask a question about a hypothetical situation. Later he became a skeptic of UFOs as it is mentioned in his biographies. But he did not lose his obsession with interest in the possibility of aliens. He spend the rest of his life looking for evidence that extraterrestrial intelligent life or aliens exist. That is a super sized obsession an avid interest.

Fixed that for you.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by justintime

The information received contained the blueprint for a spacecraft. The spacecraft was built from that blueprint and used to contact the aliens.
Yes, it was a piece of fiction written and marketed at the same time he was also denouncing UFOs and alien encounters. Sounds hypocritical.

How is that hypocritical?

[Edx]

Originally Posted by justintime

The information received contained the blueprint for a spacecraft. The spacecraft was built from that blueprint and used to contact the aliens.
Yes, it was a piece of fiction written and marketed at the same time he was also denouncing UFOs and alien encounters. Sounds hypocritical.

lol, how? Even if I don't believe in vampires I can still write a fictional story about vampires. Come on, this is just silly.

[justintime]

Originally Posted by godless dave

How is that an obsession?

Do you or do you not agree that looking for things is how you find out if things exist?

Definition of Obsession: 1: a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by justintime

The information received contained the blueprint for a spacecraft. The spacecraft was built from that blueprint and used to contact the aliens.
Yes, it was a piece of fiction written and marketed at the same time he was also denouncing UFOs and alien encounters. Sounds hypocritical.

Please notice those words you wrote. Yeah, the ones I made into big red words. Right there. Yes, those are the words. Do you see what they say? Do you know what they mean?

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by justintime

And he also wrote Contact which was all about UFOs, alien spacecraft and alien encounters. Here he is pandering to the so called irrational and trying to profit from it after he claimed to be a Skeptic of UFOs. It is hard to be a scientist and not indulge in some wild speculations or vicariously live in fiction, what the real world cannot provide, except in fantasy land.

As I,and others, have pointed out to you in several threads on other fora, Contact is a novel. A novel of speculative fiction. A novel written for entertainment. But please, feel free continue to claim that writing the novel is somehow a failing of Dr. Sagan's. Evidence would be nice...

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by justintime

Definition of Obsession: 1: a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling.

Like if someone had a persistent preoccupation with badmouthing skeptics and skepticism on various forums on the internet, disturbing to the extent that it manifests itself in expressing unreasonable ideas or feelings in a way that gets him banned from some of those forums? Like is that a fair description of an obsession?

No, Carl Sagan's interest was not an obsession.

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by justintime

Definition of Obsession: 1: a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling.

...You may have missed godless dave's question, so I am posting it again for you:
"Do you or do you not agree that looking for things is how you find out if things exist?"

I am also interested in your answer...

[Spektator]

Evidently Sagan was so obsessed that he barely found time to earn two bachelor's degrees, a master's degree, and a doctorate; to write twenty best-selling works, some fiction but mostly nonfiction; to cowrite and host Cosmos, an extraordinarily popular award-winning TV series on the nature of science and the universe; to serve as a Professor of Astronomy at Cornell University and to direct the Laboratory for Planetary Studies there; to work as a consultant and advisor for NASA; to serve as a contributing editor/technology officer of the journal Icarus for more than a decade; to cofound the Planetary Society; to chair a division of the American Astronomical Society and become the President of the Planetologicy division of the American Geophysical Union; to marry (three times) and to father three children; to win thirty important awards, ranging from two Emmies to a Pulitzer Prize.

Sad that his consuming obsession prevented him from doing anything really worthwhile. Who knows what a brilliant career he might have had?

[justintime]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Clearly you take exception to the fact that many people here do not believe something you believe in. Would you care to share what it is that you believe in that you think we should? As you posted this in Religion and Philosophy I have a pretty good idea what it was but I won't put words in your mouth.

I was hoping that by posting my OP in the philosophy section someone could frame the difference between scientific skepticism and classical Hume, Descartes, Pyrrho and address the problems of the One and Many.

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by justintime

The information received contained the blueprint for a spacecraft. The spacecraft was built from that blueprint and used to contact the aliens.
Yes, it was a piece of fiction written and marketed at the same time he was also denouncing UFOs and alien encounters. Sounds hypocritical.

Was Walt Disney hypocritical because he knew mice can't talk and walk on two legs?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by justintime

I was hoping that by posting my OP in the philosophy section someone could frame the difference between scientific skepticism and classical Hume, Descartes, Pyrrho and address the problems of the One and Many.

One is by itself and many is a lot.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by StankApe

I don't seem to recall the UFO's or alien spacecraft in Contact. I DO seem to recall that it was speculative fiction about HOW an actual contact with ETI MIGHT go down, if it ever occurred.

Plus, it was, as you said,FICTION

As a First Contact story Contact was not a patch on Dragon's Egg, which was "all about UFOs, alien spacecraft and alien encounters"

scientists! why don't they stick to science (whatever that is) instead of writing FICTION (which is just an euphemism for "lies").

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by justintime

I was hoping that by posting my OP in the philosophy section someone could frame the difference between scientific skepticism and classical Hume, Descartes, Pyrrho and address the problems of the One and Many.

I hope you will take this as a friendly hint, "mate", but by starting your post with an erroneous, and argumentative, and incomplete, and adversarial, definition, you almost guaranteed the kind of response you are, in fact. getting.
If you want to discuss the "difference between scientific skepticism and classical Hume, Descartes, Pyrrho" and "address the problems of the One and Many", you might consider a post along these lines:

"I am hoping that someone here will be willing to frame for me the differences among what I shall call "scientific skepticism", Hume, Descartes, and Pyrrho; and, in addition, perhaps address the problems of the "One and Many"."

That way, it does not look as if you are simply pursuing an "obsession" with insulting and denigrating skeptics and skeptical thinkers into a new forum from which you have not been banned.

YMMV

[justintime]

Originally Posted by godless dave

How is that hypocritical?

It is like I am denouncing pornography as a social evil and at the same time making a phonographic movie with fictitious characters. Of course it is a fiction. The characters are not real so where is the connection. How is that hypocrisy?
That is the problem with Skepticism. Skepticism is not a position (has no moral conviction), it is a process. The process is only as good as the person processing it.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by justintime

Too many points to deal with in one post.

That's why God invented paragraphs.

Quote:

The point raise in the legal system was the play on the line "beyond a reasonable doubt." So Skeptics are entitled to their doubts but are they reasonable and what is their threshold for accepting evidence because it appears very subjective from one Skeptic to another.

As I said above, your courtroom comparison is invalid. It doesn't become more valid through repetition.

Quote:

Skeptics are about debunking claims.

Sceptics are about scepticism, critical thinking. Sometimes this involves debunking claims.

Quote:

According to Brian Dunning Skeptics are also Ghost believers and many are deeply religious. So what have they debunked?

I don't know who Brian Dunning is, nor do I know why I should care. What I do know is that Brian Dunning should speak for himself.

That's assuming that you're accurately reporting what he's said, that is. I'm a little sceptical of your claim.

Quote:

Skeptics are not experts in the field they criticize.

Which field is that? I'd love for you to tell me what I criticise.

Quote:

This was a follow up to the notion that Skeptics are critical thinkers and evidence based directed. But critical thinking is a university level course often introduced in undergraduate courses and most Skeptics are not at that level of education on Skeptics forums (no offense intended). So much that is debated by Skeptics are really outside their scope.

I wonder if you thought about that paragraph critically before posting it? My guess would be not, but I'm willing to be persuaded, if evidence comes to light.

Quote:

Which brings us to extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. How many Skeptics can even raise to the level of understanding extraordinary evidence when they are barley coping with ordinary problems. I cited an example of a skeptic scientist Richard Muller who rejected climate change results because he was skeptical of its results even though it was peer reviewed research. He conducted his own research and came to the same conclusion. His research was denied peer review but Richard Muller announced he was now a climate change believer based on his own research which was a peer rejected study versus a peer reviewed one that he earlier denounced.
So Skepticism is really a state of mind a psychological attribute of insecure individuals.

Where and when did you cite this example, what's it supposed to be an example of, and what point do you think that it proves?

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

As a First Contact story Contact was not a patch on Dragon's Egg, which was "all about UFOs, alien spacecraft and alien encounters"

scientists! why don't they stick to science (whatever that is) instead of writing FICTION (which is just an euphemism for "lies").

Thank you for reminding me of Dragon's Egg. It's been too long...

[calebprime]

Originally Posted by justintime

It is like I am denouncing pornography as a social evil and at the same time making a phonographic movie with fictitious characters. Of course it is a fiction. The characters are not real so where is the connection. How is that hypocrisy?
That is the problem with Skepticism. Skepticism is not a position (has no moral conviction), it is a process. The process is only as good as the person processing it.

It's true! Vinyl is only as sexy as the lady wearing it.

[justintime]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

As a First Contact story Contact was not a patch on Dragon's Egg, which was "all about UFOs, alien spacecraft and alien encounters"

scientists! why don't they stick to science (whatever that is) instead of writing FICTION (which is just an euphemism for "lies").

Contact Movie: Plot summary:

Quote:

Wiki: A third message is discovered containing over 30,000 pages describing plans for a machine that appears to be a kind of highly advanced vehicle, with seats for five human beings.
Ultimately, a machine is successfully built and activated, transporting five passengers