The rise of scepticism?

Donkey Oaty · 19-04-2014 05:23PM

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 · 19-04-2014 05:25PM

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 · 19-04-2014 05:30PM

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 · 19-04-2014 05:31PM

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?

19-04-2014 05:33PM

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 · 19-04-2014 05:44PM

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 · 19-04-2014 05:44PM

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 · 19-04-2014 05:46PM

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 · 19-04-2014 05:47PM

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 · 19-04-2014 05:49PM

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 · 19-04-2014 05:50PM

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 · 19-04-2014 05:50PM

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 · 19-04-2014 05:51PM

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 · 19-04-2014 05:53PM

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 · 19-04-2014 05:55PM

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 · 19-04-2014 05:58PM

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 · 19-04-2014 06:00PM

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 · 19-04-2014 06:06PM

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 · 19-04-2014 06:08PM

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 · 19-04-2014 06:10PM

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.

carpejugulum · 19-04-2014 06:12PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The starting point for any scientific experiment is "we don't know". work from the hypothesis that there is no

Pointless to carry out an experiment when you do know though.

steddyeddy · 19-04-2014 06:14PM

carpejugulum wrote: »

Pointless to carry out an experiment when you do know though.

Well sometimes it is. If we get a good result from an experiment we usually run it in duplicate or triplicate to replicate the results. Other people will and should then attempt to disprove the results.

fergalr · 19-04-2014 06:15PM

I'm not joking. I'm deadly serious, actually.

You've highlighted the words 'believe' 'probably' and 'biased' as if there is something wrong with them.

There isn't. Those concepts are an essential part of the scientific process.

If a hundred people see the same thing then we investigate it.

I said if one person says it. What if 10 people said it? 5? Where do you draw the line?

It depends on how a priori plausible what is being claimed is.

What if 5 people said they saw a tiger in Cork? You'd think maybe they were right. Especially if there were known to be a circus in town.

What if 5 people said they saw a 2 KM long flying bird? You'd maybe investigate for some other reason, but you would NOT have an unbiased mind about a 2KM long bird.

dirtyden · 19-04-2014 06:15PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

Can you tell me where this is the case? When has someones scepticism turned back the world of science. Scepticism had certainly advanced science on many occasions. Just have a read about quantum theory to see how someone could be sceptical about a common theory and which had led to a much deeper understanding.

I am pretty sure the type of scepticism you have described is not scientific in spite of you calling it that and the thoughts of these type of sceptics will have little influence on actual scientists.

fergalr · 19-04-2014 06:21PM

dirtyden wrote: »

Can you tell me where this is the case? When has someones scepticism turned back the world of science. Scepticism had certainly advanced science on many occasions. Just have a read about quantum theory to see how someone could be sceptical about a common theory and which had led to a much deeper understanding.

I am pretty sure the type of scepticism you have described is not scientific in spite of you calling it that and the thoughts of these type of sceptics will have little influence on actual scientists.

There is a 'cargo-cult' scepticism and atheism that's out there too. (not what I would call 'scientific scepticism'.

I mean, I think I see what eddy is getting at, if that's what he's referring to.
Its not ideal either, but I reckon it does less harm the the opposite, at least at the moment.

I also wouldn't be super confident in 'actual scientists'. I'm really not sure how well most 'actual scientists' understand these issues. I'm not trying to be mean, here, but the questions in Eddy's posts I would see as an example of this.

But at the same time, there's a lot of merit in the process, in the long run. People complain about publication bias, peer review problems etc - all valid complaints, but there's a very important baby not to be thrown out with the bathwater, when criticising these things.

catallus · 19-04-2014 06:26PM

It's a very interesting, if an overly big question. Any coherent argument dealing with scepticism deals with epistemology and the philosophy of philosophy of philosophy, haha, god I've trawled through a few books on it and it really is a bore once the initial frisson of potential discovery wears off. Personally, I've come to believe that thinking about the philosophy of science is beyond me until I'm an old man. That said I always thought "I am, therefore I think" to be more true to life than "I think, therefore I am", but who am I to argue with Descartes?

We have kids in primary school that know more about the theories of philosophy than Socrates ever did. We have second year engineering students who have a better grasp of relativity than Einstein could ever hope to know. The development of science over the past century has been amazing and it has been built on the backs of men of genius. Metaphysics, which I'm given to understand is a dirty word in modern science, has been there all along the path of discovery.

My own feeling on it is that scepticism is important as a driver of discovery; it is only natural that some scientists, being political human beings, will seek to sway an argument one way or the other while remaining true to experimental fact; but then one could argue that the Scientific Method is itself, being a human invention, fallible.

fergalr · 19-04-2014 06:28PM

catallus wrote: »

It's a very interesting, if an overly big question. Any coherent argument dealing with scepticism deals with epistemology and the philosophy of philosophy of philosophy, haha, god I've trawled through a few books on it and it really is a bore once the initial frisson of potential discovery wears off. Personally, I've come to believe that thinking about the philosophy of science is beyond me until I'm an old man. That said I always thought "I am, therefore I think" to be more true to life than "I think, therefore I am", but who am I to argue with Descartes?

I'm pretty sure thats a different kind of 'scepticism' - related sure, but really we could use a different word for it.

What you are talking about is more like "classical philosophical skepticism" as wikipedia calls it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism#Epistemology_and_skepticism

Whereas this discussion is more about 'scientific skepticism' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

Not saying that wikipedia's names are correct; just that the concepts are often treated as semantically separate.

catallus wrote: »

We have kids in primary school that know more about the theories of philosophy than Socrates ever did. We have second year engineering students who have a better grasp of relativity than Einstein could ever hope to know.

I think that there's definite progress, and that the conclusions of the great thinkers of the past wouldn't be so great today, as they don't have the same giant shoulders to stand on - but I think you might be overstating those particular examples.

WilyCoyote · 19-04-2014 06:48PM

Skeptics are never deceived - 'til they believe.

darkpagandeath · 19-04-2014 07:01PM

It's more to do with what is actually scientifically plausible not just witnesses plenty of people have seen/claimed to the chupacabra, bigfoot. Large undiscovered primates and a like on land is a bit of a stretch it’s not like having a hypothesis about the colossal squid in the ocean. People in general are more sceptical I think due to higher education and don't tend to believe every crackpot theory.

I will just do 1 example

Aliens coming to earth to mine gold. There is more gold/precious metals in the asteroid fields than on earth, An advanced race would not just go yeah lets use those prehistoric humans to mine it for us. They would just mine out the asteroid fields and alike. Using their advanced knowledge to construct automated machines to achieve this task.

Czarcasm · 19-04-2014 07:26PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

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.

I'm sure you guys are familiar with the argument from authority fallacy -

Argument From Authority:
the claim that the speaker is an expert, and so should be trusted.

There are degrees and areas of expertise. The speaker is actually claiming to be more expert, in the relevant subject area, than anyone else in the room. There is also an implied claim that expertise in the area is worth having. For example, claiming expertise in something hopelessly quack (like iridology) is actually an admission that the speaker is gullible.

The fact that you are both scientists working in biochemistry would certainly lend more weight to your opinions if we were specifically talking about biochemical science, and that's my problem with the peer review system - it's a review of your work by your peers, which carries with it the possibility of introducing any number of errors of judgement due to, well, personal bias being the biggest one!

Eddy, science is everyone's life, and it is in everyone's interest to be sceptical of established thinking. You say science starts with a question, I say science starts with questioning already established theory. Many scientific theories evolved from questioning previously accepted theories, y'know, those theories that were peer reviewed, substantiated, and gained acceptance through general consensus.

Sarky my earlier point still stands, because at least while you acknowledge the existence of half-decent scientists, are they only decent scientists when they put forward a theory that is agreed upon by their peers? That's the antithesis of the pursuit of knowledge, it's more the pursuit of validation by your peers. Anything outside the scope of previously accepted theory is then easily dismissed, which is why I said that it's hard to believe in science any more. A classic example of this phenomenon was the belief for decades in global warming, which was based on bad data, so now the scientific community has given it the more populist term - "climate change".

The rise of scepticism?

Comments