SGU's Skepticism 101

Skeptic_Desu

The great podcast: Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, is current doing a series of short 5 minute podcasts on the basic's of critical thinking and skepticism.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/5x5/index.asp
It's a great into to the field.

iamhunted

the field of skepicism? Is there such a thing? Arent we all skeptics anyway by default?

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

the field of skepicism? Is there such a thing? Arent we all skeptics anyway by default?

Why wouldn't there be such a thing? It takes branches of philosophy like logic and epistimology and applies them practicaly along with the scientific method. I definitely would not say everyone is a skeptic by default, a good knowledge of the scientific method is essentail!

iamhunted

to be skeptical you need to be scientific? no offense, but thats overblowing the job description there. to be skeptical you show doubt but you need to be open minded otherwise it borders on cynical.. look up definitions of the word - theres no mention of scientific methology.

i honestly believe too many cynics think they are skeptics.

Skeptic_Desu

Skepticism, to me at least, is being open to an idea but not being convinced until good solid evidence supports it. This is pretty much the scientific method. Perhaps i should have clarified: to be a good skeptic you need to understand the scientific method. Tell me though, have you actually listened to the podcasts?

iamhunted

ah - that would be a no. a) im not really interested in being told how to be skeptical about something as b) i find that many people seem to feel bad about being skeptical and seem to want to prove something in response to that ill feeling. sometimes they need a podcast to help them do so, or to reenforce their own skeptism (sp)

Im happy being skeptical about things and then trying to find out more of what Im skeptical about to see if I can uncover anything to change my mind rather than waiting for someone to bring me something to change my mind, if you know what I mean.

iamhunted

'the' scientific method - you talk about it as though theres only one way to be scientific. thats like saying theres only one way to be creative. i wonder why thats added in - is it to say skeptism is actually based around something rather than a general way of just being doubtful about things?

Skeptic_Desu

I'm not sure what you're arguing exactly? Skeptics aren't allowed to use the scientific method? That doubting something is illogical?
The scientific method is the Best way to do science. But maybe you can show some better ways to do it. ( There's a podcast on the scientific method in the link above btw.)
Why would i feel bad about being a skeptic exactly? Why do you need to bring my character into the discussion?

iamhunted

no no - im just saying that you dont have to have a scientific methodology to be a skeptic. in fact to be doubtful, or skeptical of something you just need doubts and thats it.

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

no no - im just saying that you dont have to have a scientific methodology to be a skeptic. in fact to be doubtful, or skeptical of something you just need doubts and thats it.

Good skeptics then back up this doubt with scientific evidence and logic, so as not to be dismissed as 'just skeptical'.

iamhunted

we've been through this before - you cant dismiss the paranormal as yet with scientific fact (im not trying to say that therefore the paranormal exists )..... skeptics cant even conclusively prove the mind and the brain are seperate so I dont see where the "scientific evidence and logic" ever get a chance to come into play. If science could in fact disprove such things then there'd be no need to be skeptical in the first place.

Lots of 'scientific' surmising but thats no good to anyone.

Being skeptical means you *could* conceivably change your mind. the main difference I find in skeptics is some are willing to find that mind changing info themselves, others are content to do nothing but complain about those who do and generally sit back and pretend science can answer everything. like them 18th century doctors.

Skeptic_Desu

Yes we have been through this before. Evidently you were not reading our points.
First off science can never prove anything 100%. Nobody claims it does. It can however be supported by lots of imperical evidence. Secondly the onus is on the claimant to provide said evidence. We supplied tons of evidence on were the mind is. You however ignored it and used lots of strawman arguments. Have you considered the possiblity that these skeptics will change their mind and that you just have no good evidence?

Skeptic_Desu

But this is getting off topic. Perhaps you should listen to the podcast then you can discuss them.

iamhunted

Im not going there again - the one thing you didnt provide in that thread was the concrete evidence from a scientific method (which is the stuff you earlier said was needed) - enough said, end of story.

Seriously, I couldnt listen to someone twaddling on in a podcast about how to be skeptical - it would do my head in.

Doubtful = skeptical .. you dont need a podcast to work out how to do that

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

Im not going there again - the one thing you didnt provide in that thread was the concrete evidence from a scientific method (which is the stuff you earlier said was needed) - enough said, end of story.

Seriously, I couldnt listen to someone twaddling on in a podcast about how to be skeptical - it would do my head in.

Doubtful = skeptical .. you dont need a podcast to work out how to do that

There was years worth of concrete evidence supplied, you ignored it.
Further more you failed to outline any sort of alternative hypothesis on the location of the mind let alone supply any evidence or reasoning for it.

Yea but a podcast can help you learn about stuff like Occam's razor, the meaning of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and so on.
Not listening to some thing because of a preconceived notion of what it will be like is the very definition of close-mindedness. How do you what this podcast is like with investigating it in the slightest?

So what do you call some one who doubts extraordinary claims then analyzes it and it's so called evidence crictically using logic and the scientific method?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/

iamhunted

just for you Im going to have a listen. now if i come back in tears crying "why?? Why?? Why did you make me listen to that ..." it'll be all your fault

I'll be very honest with you - the mind/brain thing was devils advocate. The point i was trying to make is that when you put that conumdrum to skeptics (and seriously, we are ALL skeptics to one degree or another) no-one can seem to come up with one statement from the overall scientific community to say either way. lots of compelling evidence to say it might be so - but then again, thats the kind of things people who believe in mediums, the paranormal, uFOs say - we all can point to supporting evidence, but really theres a lot of things science has yet to discover, therefore theres a lot of things we dont know about yet. to me, thats being skeptic. Common sense can help us work out things which more than definitely are either true or false, but theres a grey are where we can all be doubtful (theres that word again).

Thats what that was about. You dont need to be scientific to be skeptical, you just ned common sense. Most paranormal investigators have loads of that common sense stuff, which is something that "skeptics"* seem to overlook.

* some skeptics (obviously not all) are cynics and dont realise it

iamhunted

i'll try the 'scientific method' first .....

iamhunted

ah man. you;ve gone and shot yourself in the foot.

basically if you are researching and you develop a methodology to test the results to safeguard against falsifying the results then you're using scientific methodology. Thats literally the first thing yer man said there now.

If thats true then paranormal research uses scientific methodology, or at least is in the process of trying to develop such a thing. Any thing we find from an investigation is scrutinised and various ways of trying to recreate the sound (its usually sounds) and also to check against the sounds being natural - basically trying to find out how the sound was created - isnt that trying to ensure the results arent falsified by using a methodology (ie, checking every possible explaination before even thinking its unusual)? Sure sounds like it to me. Its obviously not a fully organised idea-with-a-rule-book (outside of common sense), but its still a methodology.

Cant wait to see what the next 4.5mins out of those 5 mins hold ....

iamhunted

yeah - this is really looking like the perfect answer to the standard skeptic theory that paranormal research cant do the science thing. things dont have to be proven in a lab (we know that already), observation can be a way to test a hypothesis (we know that anyway too) - basically a lot of the stuff they're talking about is precisely what the paranormal type people have been trying to explain on here to the 'skeptics'. I totally agree with what they're saying about scientific methods, but its not telling me anything I dont already know.

and to think I shelved the word 'scientific' for 'logical' ..... do i really really really have to listen to the rest of this?

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

I'll be very honest with you - the mind/brain thing was devils advocate. The point i was trying to make is that when you put that conumdrum to skeptics (and seriously, we are ALL skeptics to one degree or another) no-one can seem to come up with one statement from the overall scientific community to say either way.

It was explained to you several times that it was a very complex issue and cannot be up by one statement.
However the evidence supports the theory that the mind is a product of the brain.

iamhunted wrote: »

lots of compelling evidence to say it might be so - but then again, thats the kind of things people who believe in mediums, the paranormal, uFOs say - we all can point to supporting evidence,

Evidence is subject to scrutiny, the evidence supporting the mind in the brain was obtained by scientific rigor and experiment. While the evidence for ufos etc are anecdotal or very ambiguous at best

iamhunted wrote: »

but really theres a lot of things science has yet to discover, therefore theres a lot of things we dont know about yet. to me, thats being skeptic. Common sense can help us work out things which more than definitely are either true or false, but theres a grey are where we can all be doubtful (theres that word again).

that's pretty much the central idea behind the scientific method: any theory is subjuct to change with new evidence.

iamhunted wrote: »

Thats what that was about. You dont need to be scientific to be skeptical, you just ned common sense. Most paranormal investigators have loads of that common sense stuff, which is something that "skeptics"* seem to overlook.

* some skeptics (obviously not all) are cynics and dont realise it

You have demonstrated time and again that you don't understand science and thus miss the main use of the scientific method: to remove bias and fraud from evidence.
Something the paranormal field is in dire need to have removed.

iamhunted

you should have a listen to that podcast yourself btw - ... you might learn something

Skeptic_Desu

So you went from just using common sense from using the scientific method after hearing the podcast.
Wow that must have meant you had no idea what the scientific method was while you were posting all along

iamhunted

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

You have demonstrated time and again that you don't understand science and thus miss the main use of the scientific method: to remove bias and fraud from evidence.
Something the paranormal field is in dire need to have removed.

You know, I have to applaud how you seem to think the good old put-down can replace an actual discussion. You said nothing there thats new, except try and tell the world how stupid I am. hahaha. I can only laugh heartily.

iamhunted

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

So you went from just using common sense from using the scientific method after hearing the podcast.
Wow that must have meant you had no idea what the scientific method was while you were posting all along

no - it means im well aware of what it is but for some reason you dont want to know that. Is that because this whole 'skeptical' forum is based on the idea that skeptics do science and the paranormal freaks dont? That podcast outlines basically how paranormal investigators investigate. I dont think you'll find anyone worth their salt who would say otherwise. I cant help it if you dont understand what you;re skeptical about.

Man, I'm bored with this already.

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

You know, I have to applaud how you seem to think the good old put-down can replace an actual discussion. You said nothing there thats new, except try and tell the world how stupid I am. hahaha. I can only laugh heartily.

What are you talking about?
I never said anything about your character, only that you didn't understand the scientific method.
Perhaps rather than attack the inffered tone of my arguement perhap you would like to address some of the points i raised?

iamhunted

well you were completely wrong then. Sorry man, I cant waste my time tying in here.

iamhunted

hang on - points you raised? Not that Im going to bother replying, but read the full thread and let me know if I missed anything. After you have a good listen to that podcast of course.

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

no - it means im well aware of what it is but for some reason you dont want to know that.

you said repeatedly that you didn't use the scientific method to be skeptical.
you changed your tune after listening to the podcast. So now you do use the scientific method? what where you arguing then before you listened to the podcast?

iamhunted wrote: »

Is that because this whole 'skeptical' forum is based on the idea that skeptics do science and the paranormal freaks dont?

That's a strawman argument.

iamhunted wrote: »

That podcast outlines basically how paranormal investigators investigate. I dont think you'll find anyone worth their salt who would say otherwise. I cant help it if you dont understand what you;re skeptical about.

Tell me do you know what paradolia is?(it's covered in the podcasts as well)
Do you make sure that EVP's are not examples of this?
If so, how?

Skeptic_Desu

But hey if paranormal investigators where using the scientific method properly then surely we'd have a bit better results than the odd grainy photo and a little EVP.
But this has gone waaay off topic.
Perhap you should leave this discussion to people who are willing to listen to the podcasts and not make up their minds before hand.

iamhunted

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

you said repeatedly that you didn't use the scientific method to be skeptical.
you changed your tune after listening to the podcast. So now you do use the scientific method? what where you arguing then before you listened to the podcast?

if you had been reading, you;d see that the explaination of the 'scientific method' is already something most paranormal researchers do. this isn't me changing my mind, this is basically you not really understanding either where paranormal researchers are coming from, nor obviously what the podcast is explaining.

That's a strawman argument.

thats an observation, not a strawman argument. please, refrain from throwing around the phrases incorrectly.

Tell me do you know what paradolia is?(it's covered in the podcasts as well)
Do you make sure that EVP's are not examples of this?
If so, how?

quite aware - matrixing we call it, either visual or aural. when you hear a very clear sound in a recording, its hardly paradolia. google yourself some EVP classes to give you an idea how these things are categorised. I'd suggest you brush up on what paranormal research is actually about before you start trying to slash and burn it.

anyway - i only popped in as i felt sorry for you over here all on your own.

iamhunted

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

But hey if paranormal investigators where using the scientific method properly then surely we'd have a bit better results than the odd grainy photo and a little EVP.
But this has gone waaay off topic.
Perhap you should leave this discussion to people who are willing to listen to the podcasts and not make up their minds before hand.

again, proof that you dont really fully understand paranormal research and how its done.

plus, surely you mean leave the discussion to people willing to listen to the podcast and then not mention its all old hat that we all know already? Theres nothing new there, sorry to have to break it to you.

Standman

Iamhunted, what's the beef?

Skeptic_Desu

Before you listened to the podcast:

iamhunted wrote: »

to be skeptical you need to be scientific? no offense, but thats overblowing the job description there. to be skeptical you show doubt but you need to be open minded otherwise it borders on cynical.. look up definitions of the word - theres no mention of scientific methology.

iamhunted wrote: »

'the' scientific method - you talk about it as though theres only one way to be scientific. thats like saying theres only one way to be creative. i wonder why thats added in - is it to say skeptism is actually based around something rather than a general way of just being doubtful about things?

iamhunted wrote: »

no no - im just saying that you dont have to have a scientific methodology to be a skeptic. in fact to be doubtful, or skeptical of something you just need doubts and thats it.

iamhunted wrote: »

If science could in fact disprove such things then there'd be no need to be skeptical in the first place.

Lots of 'scientific' surmising but thats no good to anyone.

iamhunted wrote: »

Im not going there again - the one thing you didnt provide in that thread was the concrete evidence from a scientific method (which is the stuff you earlier said was needed) - enough said, end of story.

iamhunted wrote: »

Common sense can help us work out things which more than definitely are either true or false, but theres a grey are where we can all be doubtful (theres that word again).

Thats what that was about. You dont need to be scientific to be skeptical, you just ned common sense. Most paranormal investigators have loads of that common sense stuff, which is something that "skeptics"* seem to overlook.

Basically you're saying that the scientific method isn't very good at proving (or disproving anything) and that there are others way do to science (which you have yet to elaborate on) and that paranormal investigators use "common sense" instead.

However after the podcast:

iamhunted wrote: »

ah man. you;ve gone and shot yourself in the foot.

basically if you are researching and you develop a methodology to test the results to safeguard against falsifying the results then you're using scientific methodology. Thats literally the first thing yer man said there now.

If thats true then paranormal research uses scientific methodology, or at least is in the process of trying to develop such a thing. Any thing we find from an investigation is scrutinised and various ways of trying to recreate the sound (its usually sounds) and also to check against the sounds being natural - basically trying to find out how the sound was created - isnt that trying to ensure the results arent falsified by using a methodology (ie, checking every possible explaination before even thinking its unusual)? Sure sounds like it to me. Its obviously not a fully organised idea-with-a-rule-book (outside of common sense), but its still a methodology.

Cant wait to see what the next 4.5mins out of those 5 mins hold ....

iamhunted wrote: »

yeah - this is really looking like the perfect answer to the standard skeptic theory that paranormal research cant do the science thing. things dont have to be proven in a lab (we know that already), observation can be a way to test a hypothesis (we know that anyway too) - basically a lot of the stuff they're talking about is precisely what the paranormal type people have been trying to explain on here to the 'skeptics'. I totally agree with what they're saying about scientific methods, but its not telling me anything I dont already know.

and to think I shelved the word 'scientific' for 'logical' ..... do i really really really have to listen to the rest of this?

Now suddenly you say that paranormal investigators use the scientific method all the time.
Why the change of opinion? Or did you just not know what the scientific method was when you were arguing against it?

It is evident, however, that you still do not understand the complete scientific method.
You are quick to point out that paranormal investigators do the first part: observation. While they do try to observe phenomenon the fail to do so empirically the vast majority of the time.
One thing you don't see often is a paranormal investigator do the second part of the scientific method: forming a testable hypothesis. They do however like to explain the phenomenon with their personal beliefs and biases rather than the evidence.
Same goes for the third part: experiment. investigators rarely perform tests on their hypothesises. The odd time they do try, however, basic scientific controls are never put in place.
Of course even fewer put the results of these test through peer review and critical evaluation. Mainly because this process is designed to weed out errors and fraud.

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

plus, surely you mean leave the discussion to people willing to listen to the podcast and then not mention its all old hat that we all know already? Theres nothing new there, sorry to have to break it to you.

I know it's old hat, it's implied in the name
It's skepticism 101. It's basic skepticism.

Of course you realise that it's age has no effect on it validity right?
That's an appeal to novelty. But I'm sure you know that already, it being an old hat logical fallacy and all.

iamhunted

you seemed confused and seem to be combining the word 'skeptic' with the words 'scientific methodology' as if they mean the same thing.

otherwise i cant the point in quoting me saying to be skeptic you need to be doubtful and then me also saying that the scientific methods outlined in the podcast can common sense things that paranormal investigators already use.

those two things arent linked. You dont need to use a scientific method to be a skeptical about something - you just need to have doubts.

This 'scientific method' people on this forum seem to constantly use to say paranormal research is a bit naff, is indeed something researchers already use.

I think its getting a bit obvious that those who've been using such an argument either dont themselves actually understand what a scientific method is, dont understand what paranormal research actually entails or else just watch too much Most Haunted.

As i say, its something paranormal researchers already do use what the podcast classes as the scientific method so I think you've kinda shot yourself in the foot with this one.

It's skepticism 101. It's basic skepticism.

Everyone knows how to be a skeptic. " skepticism 101" is obviously a bit pointless.

iamhunted

Standman wrote: »

Iamhunted, what's the beef?

I dont understand your question. I assume most of the 'beef' is outlined in the last three pages.

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

you seemed confused and seem to be combining the word 'skeptic' with the words 'scientific methodology' as if they mean the same thing.

those two things arent linked. You dont need to use a scientific method to be a skeptical about something - you just need to have doubts.

As I've said to be good skeptic an understanding of the scientific method (as well as a good knowledge of logic) is essential.
You can be skeptical by just doubting a claim, but to back up this doubt and to be sure it's based on something other than personal opinion you need logic and science.

iamhunted wrote: »

otherwise i cant the point in quoting me saying to be skeptic you need to be doubtful and then me also saying that the scientific methods outlined in the podcast can common sense things that paranormal investigators already use.

This 'scientific method' people on this forum seem to constantly use to say paranormal research is a bit naff, is indeed something researchers already use.

I think its getting a bit obvious that those who've been using such an argument either dont themselves actually understand what a scientific method is, dont understand what paranormal research actually entails or else just watch too much Most Haunted.

As i say, its something paranormal researchers already do use what the podcast classes as the scientific method so I think you've kinda shot yourself in the foot with this one.

No, paranormal investigators do not use the scientific method properly or in it's entirety.
They do not form testable hypothesises based on empirical observation, they do not produce repeatable experiments of these hypothesises, and they certainly do not submit these finding to critical peer review.
Paranormal Investigation is not a science.
It is a pseudo-science.

iamhunted wrote: »

Everyone knows how to be a skeptic. " skepticism 101" is obviously a bit pointless.

Unfortunately this is plain not true.
If it were, people wouldn't be taken in by frauds and hoaxes that are easily exposed by a little bit of science and logic.