Skeptics Anthem

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.