The rise of scepticism?

steddyeddy

By this I mean the rise of so called scientific scepticism eg people who say ghosts, loch ness monster and other things are made up. Have they got any merit in society or are they pointless. My view is they're pointless and often completely misrepresent how science works.

They say they educate the public on how science works ect but surely that's what scientists do? I work in the science world and I can tell you a large number of scientists have no time for this crowd.

Don't get me wrong I agree with a lot of their conclusions but they completeyl misrepresent the scientific process. An example, National geographic are looking for a potential new type of ape in Sumatra based on eye witness accounts and footprints but the sceptic community have a big problem with this. They say that the locals are mistaken and there is no new animal and National Geographic shouldn't be funding this. In short a load of armchair scientists are telling a group of scientists and locals that they are wrong. The starting point for any scientific experiment is "we don't know". work from the hypothesis that there is no

For Forks Sake

I'm sceptical of your claims

SureYWouldntYa

I dont believe you

Capt'n Midnight

so you are comparing ghosts and the loch ness monster , for which no evidence exists, with local reporting evidence like foot prints ?

If the book says one thing and the locals say another , the locals will be right , every time, ask any zoologist

Arthur Beesley

I've seen Bigfoot, and the yeti and el chupecabra.

Canis Lupus

If given two options I'd prefer to be staunchly skeptical rather than staunchly gullible.

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

so you are comparing ghosts and the loch ness monster , for which no evidence exists, with local reporting evidence like foot prints ?

If the book says one thing and the locals say another , the locals will be right , every time, ask any zoologist

That's my point sceptics do compare ghosts yo undiscovered animals. They discount local testimony and claim locals are mistaken. In a sense they are dismissing evidence.

tritium

Dismissing scientifically sound. evidence. That would be a new one. Its not like every guango, right wing paper, left wing paper and most governmental departments have been doing that for decades when the truth is inconvenient

Next you'll be saying they manipulate results...

Hell Ram

Canis Lupus wrote: »

If given two options I'd prefer to be staunchly skeptical rather than staunchly gullible.

Yeah, there's no in between.

Capt'n Midnight

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

I've seen Bigfoot, and the yeti and el chupecabra.

But what about the abominable snowman ?
or the "hairs from the polar bear hybrid"
or gigantopithecus

Arthur Beesley

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But what about the abominable snowman ?
or the "hairs from the polar bear hybrid"
or gigantopithecus

Exactly.

Links234

steddyeddy wrote: »

By this I mean the rise of so called scientific scepticism eg people who say ghosts, loch ness monster and other things are made up.

People who say ghosts, loch ness monster and other things are made up are just hopping on a bandwagon and trying to be cool.

Mark my words, in 8 months time, they'll be questioning how Santa can make it all around the world in one night, because that'll be the cool thing to be "sceptical" about.

Karl Stein

The world would be a duller place without mysteries and reports of undiscovered creatures like Yetis and Sea Monsters.

AnonoBoy

I don't believe such people exist.

Sunnyisland

And don't forget mermaids, I want them to exist...


http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/mermaids/videos/the-new-evidence-are-mermaids-real.htm

Calibos

Strawman how are you?!

They're skeptical because its not just about a 'garden variety' new primate species, its about a Sumatran version of Big Foot and the search is funded by a once respected channel that lost most of its credibilty along with all the other Serious 'Educational' channels like Discovery when they started showing crowd pleasing gems like Ancient Aliens and Storage Wars. As for the host being a biotech scientist. He could be a low level technician who presses the go button on the test tube centrifuges for all we know. Its funny you should mention Loch Ness. What makes you think impoverished Indonesians are any less likely to tell fibs to boost the tourist trade than impoverished Scots?

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/wild/beast-hunter/episodes/man-ape-of-sumatra/

Czarcasm

It's hard to believe in "science" any more as scientific theory nowadays isn't based on discovery; it's based on who has the bigger wallet and therefore more resources to promote their point of view. "Peer reviewed" is also a meaningless term, so it doesn't hurt to be cynical which in turn leads to scepticism.

I find more and more when I'm reading scientific papers nowadays that they are being driven by propaganda rather than the pursuit of knowledge.

Ann Landers

steddyeddy wrote: »

By this I mean the rise of so called scientific scepticism eg people who say ghosts, loch ness monster and other things are made up. Have they got any merit in society or are they pointless. My view is they're pointless and often completely misrepresent how science works.

They say they educate the public on how science works ect but surely that's what scientists do? I work in the science world and I can tell you a large number of scientists have no time for this crowd.

They're a good thing because it means scientific findings have to be rigorous to prove their worth. Any scientist who is good at what they do and who believes in what they do has nothing to fear when it comes to scepticism.

Evolution took years to be accepted but it was eventually because of its passionate proponents.

I have a science degree but am also a natural sceptic. I don't see a conflict of interest between the two.

Bipolar Joe

What part of the "Science World" do you work in? Or is it a planet? Do you work on another planet that just happens to be called Science?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtotCkyQbPk

Temptamperu

I dont understand what this thread is about? I dont understand the question nor shall i answer it.

Czarcasm

Temptamperu wrote: »

I dont understand what this thread is about? I dont understand the question nor shall i answer it.

Eddy who is a scientist, who works in the world of science, the pursuit of knowledge, says old wives tales, myths, superstition and legends should be taken seriously over scientific inquiry...

Meanwhile, I have some gay magnets from Uganda to sell, peer reviewed research says they choose to be attracted to each other, no government pressure like.

anncoates

You mean you have to be a scientist to doubt that a gigantic sea monster has been living undetected in a small Scottish lake for decades?

Smiles35

i saw a Skeptic one day and he had 3 heads and was bigger than 3 houseses

Sarky

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's hard to believe in "science" any more as scientific theory nowadays isn't based on discovery; it's based on who has the bigger wallet and therefore more resources to promote their point of view. "Peer reviewed" is also a meaningless term, so it doesn't hurt to be cynical which in turn leads to scepticism.

I find more and more when I'm reading scientific papers nowadays that they are being driven by propaganda rather than the pursuit of knowledge.

That's adorable.

steddyeddy

Czarcasm wrote: »

Eddy who is a scientist, who works in the world of science, the pursuit of knowledge, says old wives tales, myths, superstition and legends should be taken seriously over scientific inquiry...

No C you completely misrepresented my point. I'm simply saying that science does not dismiss lines of evidence classed as legends or folklore like the sceptic community does. The starting point for a scientific enquiry is "We don't know yet".

Lets examine a few old wives tales as they were classed and you can tell me which ones we shouldn't have investigated because they were classed as such:

• Neural plasticity
• The mountain gorilla
• The giant and colossal squid
• The okapi
• The giant panda
• The komodo dragon
• The Hoan Kiem turtle

My point is that scientific inquiry is being ignored by the sceptics. For instance it was recently found that the yeti might have a basis in reality. Professor Brian Sykes from Oxford university tested samples associated with yeti sightings and concluded it was a match for an ancient polar bear that died out 40,000 years ago. Link here.

Prof Sykes found that he had a 100% match with a sample from an ancient polar bear jawbone found in Svalbard, Norway, that dates back to between 40,000 and 120,000 years ago - a time when the polar bear and closely related brown bear were separating as different species.
The species are closely related and are known to interbreed where their territories overlap.
The sample from Ladakh came from the mummified remains of a creature shot by a hunter around 40 years ago, while the second sample was in the form of a single hair, found in a bamboo forest by an expedition of filmmakers around 10 years ago.

Now the sceptic community complained that the investigation shouldn't be taken seriously and Sykes shouldn't be investigating folklore. If he listened to them scientific progress would be halted.

Now who was more scientifically accurate there Sykes who investigated and tested samples without prior bias or sceptics who insisted it shouldn't be investigated.

Scientific inquiry is my life by the way so please don't misrepresent my view.

steddyeddy

Sarky wrote: »

That's adorable.

He's right in a lot of cases. Publication bias does exist.

Stavros Murphy

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's hard to believe in "science" any more as scientific theory nowadays isn't based on discovery; it's based on who has the bigger wallet and therefore more resources to promote their point of view. "Peer reviewed" is also a meaningless term, so it doesn't hurt to be cynical which in turn leads to scepticism.

I find more and more when I'm reading scientific papers nowadays that they are being driven by propaganda rather than the pursuit of knowledge.

I'd replace the word propaganda with the phrase "an eye to receiving funding, now and in the future". Some research will attract funding, others will not. If you want to study birds in Antarctica, you bung in the phrase "and the effects of climate change on said birds" and someone writes a cheque. Leave it out, and you get to sit on the couch watching National-Geo. It distorts the field, and not in a good way.

LizzieJones

steddyeddy wrote: »

By this I mean the rise of so called scientific scepticism eg people who say ghosts, loch ness monster and other things are made up. Have they got any merit in society or are they pointless. My view is they're pointless and often completely misrepresent how science works.

I believe in Ireland. I've never seen it but I believe it exists.

Sarky

steddyeddy wrote: »

He's right in a lot of cases. Publication bias does exist.

It does. And eventually peer review shows it up.

steddyeddy

anncoates wrote: »

You mean you have to be a scientist to doubt that a gigantic sea monster has been living undetected in a small Scottish lake for decades?

No you don't but you look at the evidence and decide for and against. Sceptics seem to inform themselves based on the opinions of other sceptics. I looked up the sightings of the loch Ness monster and don't find it credible based on the discrepancy between the sightings (no consensus on morphology). I don't inform my opinion based on someone else's opinion.

steddyeddy

Sarky wrote: »

It does. And eventually peer review shows it up.

Yes eventually it does but the point is a lot aren't subjected to peer review.

Donkey Oaty

Temptamperu wrote: »

I dont understand the question nor shall i answer it.

Larry Gogan: Er...we'll move along to the next one so.

Nodin

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

I've seen Bigfoot, and the yeti and el chupecabra.

Aye, three sisters from clontarf, they used be regulars at Blinkers.

Sarky

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes eventually it does but the point is a lot aren't subjected to peer review.

Do you mean non-scientific journals? Because you don't last long as a scientific journal without a peer review system. There are a few that try. They die quickly because no half-decent scientist cares about substandard work at any point in publishing.

fergalr

Eddy, you don't seem to be making your point very clearly.


My 0.02:

Given the available evidence, there's a rational degree of belief to have in a proposition. (A proposition such as "there's a strange animal living in these woods").

I.e. given available evidence, there's a certain probability we should assign to the strange animal existing.


If that probability is very low, then, if we hear of 'local eyewitness testimony', then its more likely that the eyewitness is wrong, than that the animal exists.

In which case, scientists should not waste their time examining it at the moment - they probably have more important things to examine.


If the probability is higher, then scientists might want to examine it, depending on the benefits.



This is pretty obvious. If someone says there's a 2 kilometre tall monster rising out of the sea in Cork, a scientist will ignore it. It'd be very worth studying if true - but its so extremely improbable, its more likely the 'eyewitness' is telling lies.

If there were 1000 such eyewitnesses - or 50 such eyewitnesses, and credible looking video footage - the scientist would also start to take it seriously.

Because it becomes more likely that something is going on, rather than people are mistaken.



So, in the case where the people on sceptical blogs are saying that a claimed discovery is a waste of time.

Either: they are right, because given our previous evidence, its highly likely the new evidence is just rubbish.

Or: they are wrong, because whats claimed isn't so unlikely given previous evidence, and/or the new evidence is convincing.


If its the former case, then the sceptics are right, and fair enough. Its good to be sceptical. If you told me there was a giant sea monster coming out of Cork, and no one else said anything about it, then I'd also probably treat you as being delusional or stupid.

Everyone would. Only someone gullible would initially believe something so improbable, or change their actions.

But as the evidence mounts, things would have to change.


Does this make sense?

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

By this I mean the rise of so called scientific scepticism eg people who say ghosts, loch ness monster and other things are made up. Have they got any merit in society or are they pointless. My view is they're pointless and often completely misrepresent how science works.

They say they educate the public on how science works ect but surely that's what scientists do? I work in the science world and I can tell you a large number of scientists have no time for this crowd.

Don't get me wrong I agree with a lot of their conclusions but they completeyl misrepresent the scientific process. An example, National geographic are looking for a potential new type of ape in Sumatra based on eye witness accounts and footprints but the sceptic community have a big problem with this. They say that the locals are mistaken and there is no new animal and National Geographic shouldn't be funding this. In short a load of armchair scientists are telling a group of scientists and locals that they are wrong. The starting point for any scientific experiment is "we don't know". work from the hypothesis that there is no

I'm interested to know where in the 'science world' you work, and what you mean by so-called scientific scepticism, out of curiosity.

I'm not sure how comparable cryptozoology is with ghosts, but to borrow from Dawkins, I don't need tomes of studies to tell me leprechauns don't exist.

Yes eventually it does but the point is a lot aren't subjected to peer review.

If it's not subjected to peer review it can't really be considered a worthwhile scientific study.

Turtwig

It's pretty accepted that ALL scientific studies are wrong. Science is based on skepticism. Any skepticism that isn't built on strawmen and misinformation e.g Ken Ham, Christopher Monckton, Jenny McCarthy is to be welcomed.

The problem I have with scepticism is that the word gets tossed out at anyone who disagrees with anything. Which isn't scientific skepticism.

steddyeddy

Sarky wrote: »

Do you mean non-scientific journals? Because you don't last long as a scientific journal without a peer review system. There are a few that try. They die quickly because no half-decent scientist cares about substandard work at any point in publishing.

No i'm talking about certain companies not publishing the results of certain trials.

steddyeddy

Turtwig wrote: »

It's pretty accepted that ALL scientific studies are wrong. Science is based on skepticism. Any skepticism that isn't built on strawmen and misinformation e.g Ken Ham, Christopher Monckton, Jenny McCarthy is to be welcomed.

The problem I have with scepticism is that the word gets tossed out at anyone who disagrees with anyone. Which isn't scientific skepticism.

Well there's no need for scientific scepticism when we have scientific method.

Turtwig

steddyeddy wrote: »

No i'm talking about certain companies not publishing the results of certain trials.

That's like tainting all priests because of the actions of some individuals.

Off topic: cochrane collaboration are probably the best thing to happen to evidence based medicine in the past century.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

I'm interested to know where in the 'science world' you work, and what you mean by so-called scientific scepticism, out of curiosity.

I'm not sure how comparable cryptozoology is with ghosts, but to borrow from Dawkins, I don't need tomes of studies to tell me leprechauns don't exist.


If it's not subjected to peer review it can't really be considered a worthwhile scientific study.

I'm currently doing biochemical research involving NMR and protein refolding strategies.

Many sceptics see undiscovered animals as far fetched as ghosts. One poster hear ridiculed a possible ape on Sumatra (one of the most remote island in the world) despite sightings by zoologists, locals and tourists.

steddyeddy

Turtwig wrote: »

That's like tainting all priests because of the actions of some individuals.

Off topic: cochrane collaboration are probably the best thing to happen to evidence based medicine in the past century.

I'm not dissing all pharmaceutical companies as I hope to work for one some day. I'm just agreeing with a previous poster that it happens.

fergalr

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well there's no need for scientific scepticism when we have scientific method.

What do you mean by this?

Isn't scientific scepticism one of the cornerstones of the scientific method?

dirtyden

steddyeddy wrote: »

No i'm talking about certain companies not publishing the results of certain trials.

What has that got to do with scientific sceptism as you described in the initial post? You all over the place here to be honest. The original post was incoherent and your now diverging all over the place. Your discussion/argument lacks scientific rigour. Its purpose is unclear and your defence of your stand point is disjointed. It certainly would not stand up to peer review.

Educated sceptism is as important to science as is curiosity. Without sceptism we might still be thinking the world was flat.

Turtwig

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well there's no need for scientific scepticism when we have scientific method.

Science isn't a formula or a set of procedures that one follows. Though it seems that many practising scientists currently erroneously believe this. It's, well, it's not actually clear what science is. Skepticism is definitely an integral part of it.

Eddy, I think an issue here might be how you are using the word and how I'm using it. What do you mean by scientific skepticism? Is it anything that opposes consensus or it is something more refined? The former isn't scientific skepticism.

Here's a nice little video illustrating a simple principle:

steddyeddy

fergalr wrote: »

What do you mean by this?

Isn't scientific scepticism one of the cornerstones of the scientific method?

It's a component of scientific method and it is necessary to demand proof of claims. The problem I have is when sceptics dismiss evidence and possibilities that might lead to a new claim.

Here's a scientists line of thinking as opposed to a believer and a sceptic

Believer: There is an unknown ape in Sumatra
Sceptic: If you believe that you must believe in bigfoot ect and locals are mistaken or lying.


Scientist: Lets examine the eye witness reports, footprints and habitat without prior bias and assess whether an investigation is warranted.

steddyeddy

dirtyden wrote: »

What has that got to do with scientific sceptism as you described in the initial post? You all over the place here to be honest. The original post was incoherent and your now diverging all over the place. Your discussion/argument lacks scientific rigour. Its purpose is unclear and your defence of your stand point is disjointed. It certainly would not stand up to peer review.

Educated sceptism is as important to science as is curiosity. Without sceptism we might still be thinking the world was flat.

Yes I'm pretty sure a post on boards would not stand up to peer review.

My point is that a lot of sceptics are dismissing evidence or possibilities that might need to a new discovery.

fergalr

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's a component of scientific method and it is necessary to demand proof of claims. The problem I have is when sceptics dismiss evidence and possibilities that might lead to a new claim.

Here's a scientists line of thinking as opposed to a believer and a sceptic

Believer: There is an unknown ape in Sumatra
Sceptic: If you believe that you must believe in bigfoot ect and locals are mistaken or lying.


Scientist: Lets examine the eye witness reports, footprints and habitat without prior bias and assess whether an investigation is warranted.

What about the following?

Believer: There is a 2KM tall sea monster living near Cork! No one else has seen it, but my friend Sean has!

Sceptic: If you believe that you must believe in fairies.


Scientist: This is probably someone pulling someone's leg. I'm going to continue to believe there's no sea monster near Cork, and amn't going to bother investigating it unless there's a lot more evidence. I'm definitely biased against such an a priori improbable event, as is rational. I'm certainly not going to end up looking like a tool to my peers by trying to collect footprints just because some kid said they saw Godzilla.

fergalr

steddyeddy wrote: »

My point is that a lot of sceptics are dismissing evidence or possibilities that might need to a new discovery.

As is often rational to do. You can't investigate everything. There isn't the resources.

We disbelieve things that there is evidence for all the time, because there is more evidence against. That's totally rational.

If I say: Eddy, there's an elephant listening outside your window, as you are reading this post!

- That is evidence (very weak) that there's an elephant outside your window.
- But its so weak, you'd just be gullible to do anything apart from instantly discard the possibility. I mean I don't even know where you are!

And that's fine. If you decided to conduct an investigation into the existence of that elephant, treating it as equally likely whether or not there was such an elephant, you wouldn't be being scientific - you'd be being gullible and irrational.

steddyeddy

fergalr wrote: »

What about the following?

Believer: There is a 2KM tall sea monster living near Cork! No one else has seen it, but my friend Sean has!

Sceptic: If you believe that you must believe in fairies.


Scientist: This is probably someone pulling someone's leg. I'm going to continue to believe there's no sea monster near Cork, and amn't going to bother investigating it unless there's a lot more evidence. I'm definitely biased against such an a priori improbable event, as is rational. I'm certainly not going to end up looking like a tool to my peers by trying to collect footprints just because some kid said they saw Godzilla.

Are you joking? None of the ideas above are scientific. Scientists do care about what their peers think but if everyone listened to their peers science wouldn't be as advanced as it is today.

If someone gets a sighting of a sea creature (animals that are unknown to science will be called monsters to lay people. The fact that they are given that label does not mean we shouldn't investigate) then we log it. If a hundred people see the same thing then we investigate it. How would it do any good to say it does or doesn't exist?

steddyeddy

Turtwig wrote: »

Science isn't a formula or a set of procedures that one follows. Though it seems that many practising scientists currently erroneously believe this. It's, well, it's not actually clear what science is. Skepticism is definitely an integral part of it.

Eddy, I think an issue here might be how you are using the word and how I'm using it. What do you mean by scientific skepticism? Is it anything that opposes consensus or it is something more refined? The former isn't scientific skepticism.

Here's a nice little video illustrating a simple principle:

Well in a way science follows a formula. You have a question, you attempt to answer that question with a hypothesis, you use experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

The scepticism I see in the media (followers of James Randi ect) seems to simply shout down other people's hypotheses. Eg. National Geographic (not the channel) and other zoological funding bodies are funding an expedition and camera trapping expedition to determine whether an unknown creature exists and some sceptics are saying that the investigation is a joke, waste of time and that the creature definitely doesn't exist.