Skeptics Anthem

recedite

Tim Minchin...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w

maccored

i always seem to have an issue with the word 'sceptic'.

heres how its described by Dr Ciaran O'Keeffe:

Scepticism (or the US spelling – skepticism) is generally described as a doubting or questioning attitude. It can further be defined as follows:
• It can be regarded as a philosophical stance in which one critically examines whether the knowledge and perceptions that they have are actually true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have absolutely true knowledge; or,
• It can be a pragmatic position in which one questions the veracity of claims, and seeks to prove or disprove them using the scientific method.

I havent met very many self proclaimed 'sceptics' (outside those who know the difference between a sceptic and a cynic) who debate if it 'can ever be said to have absolutely true knowledge' (they usually say they know they know the answer for certain) or seek to 'to prove or disprove' the things they are sceptical of.


henceforth, technically i think you should have referred to that as the 'Cynics Anthem'

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

i always seem to have an issue with the word 'sceptic'.

heres how its described by Dr Ciaran O'Keeffe:




I havent met very many self proclaimed 'sceptics' (outside those who know the difference between a sceptic and a cynic) who debate if it 'can ever be said to have absolutely true knowledge' (they usually say they know they know the answer for certain) or seek to 'to prove or disprove' the things they are sceptical of.


henceforth, technically i think you should have referred to that as the 'Cynics Anthem'

Probably not a good idea to listen to Ciaran O'Keeffe as to what is or isn't a skeptic. As the "official sceptic" on shows like Most Haunted he did a terrible job.

steddyeddy

Wicknight wrote: »

Probably not a good idea to listen to Ciaran O'Keeffe as to what is or isn't a skeptic. As the "official sceptic" on shows like Most Haunted he did a terrible job.

well in fairness surely therses a better word than skeptic to use even critical thinker as skeptic has been attached to things like round earth skeptics or holocaust skeptics

maccored

Wicknight wrote: »

Probably not a good idea to listen to Ciaran O'Keeffe as to what is or isn't a skeptic. As the "official sceptic" on shows like Most Haunted he did a terrible job.

You know ciaran personally I presume to get such a perspective? He knows a f*uk load more than most on here if you ask me.

Zombrex

steddyeddy wrote: »

well in fairness surely therses a better word than skeptic to use even critical thinker as skeptic has been attached to things like round earth skeptics or holocaust skeptics

I don't know, I like the term skeptic. I also use critical thinker. You can't really do anything about people taking words and twisting them.

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

You know ciaran personally I presume to get such a perspective? He knows a f*uk load more than most on here if you ask me.

Why would I have to know him personally to know he did a piss poor job on Most Haunted?

You are the one quoting him, explain to me why we should care what he says about what a skeptic is?

steddyeddy

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would I have to know him personally to know he did a piss poor job on Most Haunted?

You are the one quoting him, explain to me why we should care what he says about what a skeptic is?

Because it would help for some of you to take some advice, some skeptics i would put into the category of true beliver, accepting evidence blindly or rejecting evidence blindly.

Zombrex

steddyeddy wrote: »

Because it would help for some of you to take some advice, some skeptics i would put into the category of true beliver, accepting evidence blindly or rejecting evidence blindly.

That is someone what self contradictory?

"Some skeptics" by who's definition of the word skeptic? I mean anyone can call themselves a skeptic, and you can call anyone you like a skeptic. Doesn't mean they are.

Saying you think some skeptics are being un-skeptical doesn't make sense. If they are then they aren't skeptics. If they claim to be skeptics but aren't then they are mis-using the term, and probably would continue to mis-use any any other term.

Replacing the term skeptic with critical thinker isn't going to change that, the term critical thinker would just end up being abused.

steddyeddy

Wicknight wrote: »

That is someone what self contradictory?

"Some skeptics" by who's definition of the word skeptic? I mean anyone can call themselves a skeptic, and you can call anyone you like a skeptic. Doesn't mean they are.

Saying you think some skeptics are being un-skeptical doesn't make sense. If they are then they aren't skeptics. If they claim to be skeptics but aren't then they are mis-using the term, and probably would continue to mis-use any any other term.

Replacing the term skeptic with critical thinker isn't going to change that, the term critical thinker would just end up being abused.

Ok then can you give me your version of the word skeptic?

maccored

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would I have to know him personally to know he did a piss poor job on Most Haunted?

you watch most haunted? i dont, but Ive had enough discussions with ciaran to know he's a damn good example of what a sceptic should be.

You are the one quoting him, explain to me why we should care what he says about what a skeptic is?

cus i happen to completely agree with him. far too many people dont know what the word means.

maccored

steddyeddy wrote: »

Because it would help for some of you to take some advice, some skeptics i would put into the category of true beliver, accepting evidence blindly or rejecting evidence blindly.

I agree. some think a sceptic is the opposite of a 'believer', when thats really a cynic.

recedite

A cynic is a detractor (negative), whereas a sceptic points out the cons to people who have already given expression to the pros. (neutral)

Sometimes a word crosses the Atlantic and then comes back here again with a more specific or slightly altered meaning. In such cases it can be useful to retain both forms. So Skeptic is more of a philosophy, whereas sceptical is a temporary stance.
Similarly the word leverage when pronounced with an American accent indicates specifically a gamble with borrowed money, as opposed to using a long stick to shift a boulder.

Not sure what the Yanks would make of it all though.

maccored

'temporary stance' - i think that hits the nail on the head

Zombrex

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ok then can you give me your version of the word skeptic?

I think a skeptic is someone who requires claims and explanations to be backup with a body of evidence that supports the particular claim above other explanations in order to accept the particular claim or explanation as accurate.

Basically a skeptic is someone who does not take on face value claims supported merely by personal assessment, someone who follows and understands the philosophy of science particular the parts that touch on how we can know something is accurate.

This does not require "proving" something using the scientific method, since you can't do that.

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

you watch most haunted?

My ex-girlfriend did. And thus so did I. But that is a whole other issue .... :P

maccored wrote: »

i dont, but Ive had enough discussions with ciaran to know he's a damn good example of what a sceptic should be.

Fair enough. From what I've seen and read I disagree.

maccored wrote: »

cus i happen to completely agree with him. far too many people dont know what the word means.

Ask him how someone proves something with the scientific method.

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

I agree. some think a sceptic is the opposite of a 'believer', when thats really a cynic.

A cynic is someone who believes that humans are essentially bad and thus believe they are liars and frauds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(contemporary)

A cynic would believe someone is lying, a skeptic would simply believe that a claim has not been supported, why it has not been support is irrelevant (a person could be lying about what they saw, they could be mistaken, they could be correct but just not supported their position).

This idea that I've seen from a number of posters on this forum that a skeptic must invest time and energy into exploring the particular area of paranormal claims or they are a cynic is nonsense.

Being a skeptic does not require any action on the part of the skeptic. It is not being cynical to say a position is not supported, even if you do not put forward any other help in exploring the phenomena further or discovering theories that are supported.

The idea that an "unhelpful" skeptic is a cynic is a misuse of the terms. It is also rather unfair on the skeptic as whether they are helpful or not is largely in the eye of the believer, and based on their movtivations and belief that there must be something interesting to find in these phenomena.

A skeptic who does nothing but point out that a claim has not been support could claim they are being very helpful since a claim that has not reached a particular position of supported accuracy is no use to anyone. It is thus valid to point this out.

maccored

Wicknight wrote: »

I think a skeptic is someone who requires claims and explanations to be backup with a body of evidence that supports the particular claim above other explanations in order to accept the particular claim or explanation as accurate.

Basically a skeptic is someone who does not take on face value claims supported merely by personal assessment, someone who follows and understands the philosophy of science particular the parts that touch on how we can know something is accurate.

This does not require "proving" something using the scientific method, since you can't do that.

As long, of course, as the sceptic in question is willing to give benefit of the doubt to ideas that require a bit of forward thinking, rather than state it cant happen as theres no proof, then I'd agree with you.

maccored

Wicknight wrote: »

My ex-girlfriend did. And thus so did I. But that is a whole other issue .... :P



Fair enough. From what I've seen and read I disagree.



Ask him how someone proves something with the scientific method.

from another thread

Scientific method

• There is no single, strict scientific method used by all scientists, a misconception popularized by elementary science textbooks. The rigid hypothesis→experiment→conclusion model of science is an important part of many fields, particularly basic sciences like physics and chemistry, but is not the only way to perform genuine science. Many sciences do not fit well into this mold, such as the observational sciences of astronomy or paleontology, or the abstract science of mathematics; and much important scientific work has come from curiosity and unguided exploration, for example, the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, or the development of the atomic force microscope.[120][121

If you can tell me no-one will ever discover a scientific method to aid paranormal research, then fair enough. That would sound a tad cynical of you, but each to their own.

I dont think anyone involved in paranormal research would claim there is a way to explain paranormal claims via the scientific method, but without study and research, there never will be much important scientific work has come from curiosity and unguided exploration[/B]]'. This is the goal of a lot of 'scientific' orientated research teams across the world.

In conclusion, Im wondering what you were aiming at with your question, considering the answer is quite obvious?

leddpipe

i genuinely roared laughing when I logged on here for the first time in ages and found maccored touting the difference between a skeptic and a cynic.....AGAIN!

thanks for clearing that up for us mate :rolleyes:

steddyeddy

leddpipe wrote: »

i genuinely roared laughing when I logged on here for the first time in ages and found maccored touting the difference between a skeptic and a cynic.....AGAIN!

thanks for clearing that up for us mate :rolleyes:

well laughing generally is the skeptic anthem, it gets them out of thinking, providing alternitive explanations and often looking at evidence

maccored

leddpipe wrote: »

i genuinely roared laughing when I logged on here for the first time in ages and found maccored touting the difference between a skeptic and a cynic.....AGAIN!

thanks for clearing that up for us mate :rolleyes:

yeah? Its a bit unfortunate it takes so long to get the point across. Are you the same ledpipe I was on an investigation with once? I dropped you off somewhere round the curragh? If it was, you didnt sound like such a sm*rta*se then.

steddyeddy

maccored wrote: »

yeah? Its a bit unfortunate it takes so long to get the point across.

Man if their anything thing like some of the skeptics i have met in my field then dogmatisim will be very much the order of the day/

maccored

each to their own I suppose.

leddpipe

maccored wrote: »

yeah? Its a bit unfortunate it takes so long to get the point across. Are you the same ledpipe I was on an investigation with once? I dropped you off somewhere round the curragh? If it was, you didnt sound like such a sm*rta*se then.

that's me horse!i was quite interested in your stories actually!thats probably why i wasn't being a "smartarse", although i dont recall being one lately either. plus, you weren't so condescending back then, at least not to me!

leddpipe

steddyeddy wrote: »

well laughing generally is the skeptic anthem, it gets them out of thinking, providing alternitive explanations and often looking at evidence

swing and a miss spaghettieddy

steddyeddy

leddpipe wrote: »

swing and a miss spaghettieddy

Well feel free to counter my opinion or just throw some quip at me so you dont have to think really

maccored

leddpipe wrote: »

..... although i dont recall being one lately either. plus, you weren't so condescending back then, at least not to me!

I'm sorry if you think Im condescending, but this:

Originally Posted by leddpipe
i genuinely roared laughing when I logged on here for the first time in ages and found maccored touting the difference between a skeptic and a cynic.....AGAIN!

thanks for clearing that up for us mate

.. didnt really add to the conversation.

Plus all you really said was Ive mentioned the cynic v sceptic debate before. Its the insinuation used by the word 'touting', yet you dont come right out and explain what you mean by that, that gave me the impression you were being a smartarse. What makes you laugh is your own business.

Please excuse me if I misread your post.

maccored

oh by the way - if you had these kind of debates with me in real life, you'd get the same kind of responses. As I mentioned, you didn't. Glad you enjoyed the 'stories'.

leddpipe

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well feel free to counter my opinion or just throw some quip at me so you dont have to think really

i dont come on boards to flex my intellectual e-muscles sport,unlike some people!

quip-y enough for ya? :P

leddpipe

maccored wrote: »

Please excuse me if I misread your post.

apology accepted!

steddyeddy

leddpipe wrote: »

i dont come on boards to flex my intellectual e-muscles sport,unlike some people!

quip-y enough for ya? :P

No thats a valid point

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

As long, of course, as the sceptic in question is willing to give benefit of the doubt to ideas that require a bit of forward thinking, rather than state it cant happen as theres no proof, then I'd agree with you.

Benefit of the doubt in what regard?

A claim is either supported or it is not supported. There is no it might be supported some time in the future, that is irrelevant. People should not be making claims unless they are supported, hoping that it will eventually be supported just demonstrates that at that moment in time they are just guessing and making stuff up.

Having said that a skeptic who understands epistemology should not say something certainly cannot happen, that would be silly.

But equally that should not be confused with a dislike for people who are merely guessing and claiming that you can't prove they are wrong.

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

If you can tell me no-one will ever discover a scientific method to aid paranormal research, then fair enough. That would sound a tad cynical of you, but each to their own.

That response has nothing to do with what I asked.

The inability to prove something with the scientific method has nothing to do with the paranormal. It is to do with the limitations of human knowledge, and it applies to all areas of study.

maccored wrote: »

I dont think anyone involved in paranormal research would claim there is a way to explain paranormal claims via the scientific method, but without study and research, there never will be much important scientific work has come from curiosity and unguided exploration[/B]]'. This is the goal of a lot of 'scientific' orientated research teams across the world.

The scientific method is just a methodology. You can apply it to anything that is observable (in any form, not just with your eyes).

"Paranormal" is just a laymans term given to certain phenomena that have traditionally been associated with supernatural claims, such as ghosts. In reality "paranormal" is not a distinction made in science. You either have a phenomena or you don't. You either have a scientifically supported claim/explanation for said phenomena or you don't.

maccored wrote: »

In conclusion, Im wondering what you were aiming at with your question, considering the answer is quite obvious?

I'm aiming to see if O'Keeffe knows enough about the philosophy of science that I should care what he thinks a skeptic is.

maccored

Wicknight wrote: »

That response has nothing to do with what I asked.

The inability to prove something with the scientific method has nothing to do with the paranormal. It is to do with the limitations of human knowledge, and it applies to all areas of study.

there is no one, single scientific method. maybe you missed out on the explaination of 'scientific method'.

The scientific method is just a methodology. You can apply it to anything that is observable (in any form, not just with your eyes).

"Paranormal" is just a laymans term given to certain phenomena that have traditionally been associated with supernatural claims, such as ghosts. In reality "paranormal" is not a distinction made in science. You either have a phenomena or you don't. You either have a scientifically supported claim/explanation for said phenomena or you don't.

'scientifically supported' through a method developed to do that. so far theres no way to prove 'ghosts' exist scientifically. Can you tell me there never will? If not then your last sentence makes no sense.

Also, theres plenty of research into environmenal factors that can cause people to believe they are having a paranormal experience. that can be scientifically supported.

I'm aiming to see if O'Keeffe knows enough about the philosophy of science that I should care what he thinks a skeptic is.

No offense, but who cares what you believe? If you want to believe being cynical is *really* being sceptical then work away. No-one's loss but your own.

Its obvious you dont want to hear that a sceptical viewpoint is, as already mentioned by another poster, a 'temproary stance' .... as that means a sceptic is open minded. open minded enough not to poopah ideas that arent in any way proven (and indeed, ideas that currently dont have any scientific way of being proven). Its obvious you dont fall into that category, therefore its not your idea of a sceptic.

steddyeddy

Wicknight wrote: »

Benefit of the doubt in what regard?

A claim is either supported or it is not supported. There is no it might be supported some time in the future, that is irrelevant. People should not be making claims unless they are supported, hoping that it will eventually be supported just demonstrates that at that moment in time they are just guessing and making stuff up.

Having said that a skeptic who understands epistemology should not say something certainly cannot happen, that would be silly.

But equally that should not be confused with a dislike for people who are merely guessing and claiming that you can't prove they are wrong.

I agree with that my problem with some people who call themselves skeptics is that they ignore the presented evidence, As regards most phenomenom the scientific stance is "we dont know yet" some skeptics conceive this as "theres no way that exists i wont expend energy on it" or the beleiver "that definatly exists". The aproach that has the most scientific merit and fostered the most breakthroughs is the more open minded aproach.

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

there is no one, single scientific method. maybe you missed out on the explaination of 'scientific method'.

Again that isn't relevant. No scientific method can prove a theory about reality. That is not to do with the method you are using but rather to do with the limitations of humans to know they have discovered enough about the world to say that a theory is true where you can say it is proved. Every scientific theory can be wrong, and thus none can be said to be proved.

maccored wrote: »

'scientifically supported' through a method developed to do that. so far theres no way to prove 'ghosts' exist scientifically. Can you tell me there never will? If not then your last sentence makes no sense.

You can't prove anything exists. What you can do is build support a theory (model) of what you believe is happening during any observed phenomena.

Ghosts can be scientifically supported if someone can build a testable model of a ghost, a model who's predictions can be matched against observations.

But that wouldn't prove the existence of ghosts. Your theory, not matter how well supported, can always be wrong. Newton's Laws of Motion were accurate up to a point but ultimately were wrong, and have been replaced by General Relativity.

Again this is not anything to do with the paranormal. It is just a fact of science and human understanding.

O'Keeffe doesn't seem to understand this, which would cause me to question how much of an authority he is to tell the rest of us, through you, what is or isn't a skeptic.

maccored wrote: »

No offense, but who cares what you believe?

Well you do apparently, since you keep asking me questions about my posts.

Zombrex

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree with that my problem with some people who call themselves skeptics is that they ignore the presented evidence

Fair enough. with no idea who these people are or any specific examples I can't comment on specific examples.

I would say that it is part of the remit of a skeptic to be extra skeptical of claims that require that vast amounts of other well established scientific theory is wrong.

So it better be some pretty convincing evidence, backed by strong scientific theory (ie models) that have been consistently shown to be accurate.

I've never heard of any paranormal phenomena being back by this sort of thing, but if there has been and a skeptic rejected that then they are being silly.

steddyeddy wrote: »

As regards most phenomenom the scientific stance is "we dont know yet" some skeptics conceive this as "theres no way that exists i wont expend energy on it" or the beleiver "that definatly exists".

I think it would be wrong of a skeptic to say there is no way "that" exists.

On the other hand "that" is often a complete guess by a believer, so I don't blame a skeptic from not bothering to expend energy on it.

Everyone needs to recognize the difference between a phenomena and the explanation for the phenomena. A fuzzy light or cold feeling is the phenomena. "Ghosts" is the explanation.

A skeptic should keep an open mind as to what the phenomena might be (ie shouldn't dismiss it off hand as a cold breeze), but doesn't have to entertain any and every explanation thrown at him, particularly if these explanations do not fit into any current understanding.

For example it is quite proper to say that it is ridiculous unlikely that ghosts exist, given everything we know about biology. There is simply no gap that ghosts would fill in this regard. There is nothing in any area of biology or physics that suggests that ghosts might be a real phenomena.

There also a huge amount of psychology that suggests humans are prone to imagining things like ghosts due to various evolved cognitive abilities we have evolved.

So any evidence for the existence of ghosts would have to be quite overwhelming, and in the absence of this I wouldn't blame a skeptic for dismissing claims of ghost sightings.

That is not the same as saying that the phenomena being attributed to ghosts isn't something that is actually happening.

steddyeddy wrote: »

The aproach that has the most scientific merit and fostered the most breakthroughs is the more open minded aproach.

That is up to the believer, not the skeptic. It is the responsibility of the believer (or the person putting forward the claims) to support them, not the skeptic.