Philosophy Discussion Forums

Roel wrote:I see many very good debunkings and videos by sceptics in all kinds of subjects, and I consider them as intelligent, critical people. However I see an attitude to want to debunk everything, even if it's possible that something is actually real. A good example is the 4chan murderer of which people first thought he was acting with his girlfriend, until the police discovered her body in his house.

I rarely see an attitude to debunk everything. This is a very hard position to hold, since one cannot assert things. If you debunk everything, what criteria do you have left to debunk with?

There is also the "Bible code" theory which, although not giving full proof is very convincing, but if you consider all instances in which the prediction comes true as cpincidence, how can yoh eved prove it to be true?

If you have a bias that something is fake, can you still be a good sceptic?

Most humans, in reality, are skeptical about some things, to varying degrees, and not skeptical about other things. If you have beliefs, then you are skeptical about beliefs that contradict your beliefs. Active skeptics question and probe people who have certain beliefs and tend not to question and probe people who have beliefs the skeptics share.

Active skeptics question and probe people who have certain beliefs and tend not to question and probe people who have beliefs the skeptics share.

I'm sorry are you suggesting that all skeptics aren't actually skeptics?

Eduk wrote:

Active skeptics question and probe people who have beliefs and tend not to question and probe people who have beliefs the skeptics share.

I'm sorry are you suggesting that all skeptics aren't actually skeptics?

No problem. I would say most skeptics are not skeptics in any binary sense. For example, most people who are skeptics are materialists/physicalists and will tend to NOT be skeptical about the beliefs and assertions of other materialists/physicalists remotely as actively as they are about the beliefs of people who do not fit in that category. I am sure there are some people who really aim skepticism in all directions. I think that state has its own challenges but it is also very rare.

Scientific skepticism – the application of skeptical philosophy, critical thinking skills, and knowledge of science and its methods to empirical claims, while remaining agnostic or neutral to non-empirical claims (except those that directly impact the practice of science)

That is more or less how I would define a skeptic. This may be different from your definition?
Could you give me one example of a common skeptical belief which is not questioned by skeptics and is also an incorrect belief not based on critical thinking and empirical claims?

I'm curious as to this definition, since it seems that scientific sceptics are not sceptical about claims around science.

Which would make a lot of sense, given that one of the issues that comes up with scientific sceptics is what emperical evidence can, and can't, support as a claim.

It's not an assumption that the scientific method works. Unless it's also an assumption that I am writing this message in a computer. Science demonstrably works.
Can you think of anything that is false that is assumed to be true? Or anything that is true that is assumed to be false? According to scientific scepticism.

There is a difference between skepticism and being contrary. YouTube conspiracy videos are populated more by the latter.

Eduk wrote:It's not an assumption that the scientific method works. Unless it's also an assumption that I am writing this message in a computer. Science demonstrably works.
Can you think of anything that is false that is assumed to be true? Or anything that is true that is assumed to be false? According to scientific scepticism.

I'm not sure what you're asking. There are plenty of famous scientific sceptics, such as Pete Medewar, who claim that empericism, being the only form of knowledge subject to proof, is the only form of knowledge, and that all other knowledge reduces to science. While I can see that this is an interesting claim, it doesn't really stand up to scruntiny.

Similarly there are a great many other philosphical positions, such as positivism, that will manifest as scientific scepticism. Neither of these positions are scepticism per se, but rather positions that are held by scientific sceptics. Scepticism itself is fairly safe, because it a process that commits the speaker to almost no positive beliefs, but it's an incomplete position. In practice it's not particularly easy to combine it with other positions to form a coherant world-view, because it raises the bar of justification quite so high.

I'm not familiar with Medewar's claims on empiricism. I did a quick Google search to no avail. Can you provide a reference? Is this the best example of something all sceptics agree with without using scepticism. Scientific scepticism that is. You state Medewar's claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny, are you able to be more precise?
To be clear I am talking about scientific scepticism as I attempted to provide a definition of. Philosophical scepticism is a completely different thing.

I'm not familiar with Medewar's claims on empiricism

He was a disciple of Karl Popper, so I think they share the same perspective re: science.

You seem to be being deliberately vague. I can read Karl Popper but I will be no closer to working out which bit (or bits) you feel sceptics aren't being sceptical about.

Do you feel that precision is a useful attribute when discussing with other people?

Eduk, Togo1 is the one who brought up Peter Medawar, I was just trying to be helpful, but I suppose just referencing Medawar's mentor Karl Popper didn't help much.

Popper was a physicalist (I think that's the right label) and asserted that the final proof of knowledge is that it can be falsified by empirical evidence - by observable phenomena. Any opinion, theory, etc., which cannot be thus falsified is not knowledge but mere opinion. So he would have been a committed skeptic about, say, a theory that could only be confirmed by rational analysis and/or argument alone.

Eduk: It's not an assumption that the scientific method works.

The assumption would be the one that Karl Popper made, and presumably Peter Medawar too, which is that the scientific method is the only assured path to knowledge.

Eduk wrote:I'm not familiar with Medewar's claims on empiricism. I did a quick Google search to no avail. Can you provide a reference?

'fraid not. Unless you want to buy his book.

Eduk wrote:Is this the best example of something all sceptics agree with without using scepticism. Scientific scepticism that is.

Why would all sceptics need to agree?

I think we may be talking at cross purposes. Youre talking about the position of scientific scepticism itself, which I've already suggested is relatively blameless, albiet a bit narrow. The issue is that it is rare a person to take such a narrow view and confine oneself to very very limited claims. Or to put it another way, it is rare for scientific scepticism to form the whole of a person's position in practice.

Eduk wrote:You state Medewar's claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny, are you able to be more precise?

Yes, his position, as I understand it is that there are no limits to science, because beyond science are merely airy assertions of no practical value. All knowledge is science, because anything beyond science is not really knowledge.

Given that he's rejecting non-scientific claims, rather than being neutral towards them, he probably wouldn't fall under your definition, despite describing himself as a scientific sceptic. That's merely a disagreement over terminology between you and him though, assuming you would see that position as some form of scepticism other than the scientific.

Apologies Felix I didn't notice that it wasn't Togo1 who had replied.

Togo1. Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought you were originally agreeing with Moreno

Active skeptics question and probe people who have certain beliefs and tend not to question and probe people who have beliefs the skeptics share.

You seemed to echo that by saying

I'm curious as to this definition, since it seems that scientific sceptics are not sceptical about claims around science.

But now you are saying

it is rare a person to take such a narrow view and confine oneself to very very limited claims. Or to put it another way, it is rare for scientific scepticism to form the whole of a person's position in practice.

This I agree with. No one is perfect. Everyone has bias. Everyone makes assumptions. The trick is to make as few and small assumptions as possible and find ways to mitigate against them.

Regarding requiring falsifiability before considering something a scientific theory. That seems reasonable to me? I can't think of anything which I know which doesn't fit into this requirement?

Eduk wrote:

Scientific skepticism – the application of skeptical philosophy, critical thinking skills, and knowledge of science and its methods to empirical claims, while remaining agnostic or neutral to non-empirical claims (except those that directly impact the practice of science)

That is more or less how I would define a skeptic. This may be different from your definition?
Could you give me one example of a common skeptical belief which is not questioned by skeptics and is also an incorrect belief not based on critical thinking and empirical claims?

Was this directed at me?
I'll assume so, but if I am wrong pardon my intrusion.

I am using skeptic/skepticism in the philsophical sense which would mean that it is a critical doubting attitude (being directed at some set of beliefs or potentially all assertions and beliefs. The definition you quote is interesting since it describes a skeptic who would remain neutral, rather than skeptical, when reacting to non-empirical claims. Such as the existence of God, say - as long as the person is not saying that their belief or assertion is based on empirical claims. I rarely encounter that kind of skeptic.