Skeptics
Offline I always considered myself a skeptic because if I hear anything questionable, I question it. In my opinion, that is skepticism. I stopped considering myself a "skeptic" when I noticed a blatent difference between the way I think and the "organized skeptics" (such as Michael Shermer) think.
What I mean by "organized skeptics" is someone that only accept something that can be proven, or deny things that have not or can not be been proven.
The biggest problem I see with this is that their skepticism sometimes begins with the fallacy of "Argumentum ad populum" (appeal to the public). I am not sure if this is to "fit in" with the majority of people, a way to be "right to start with", the lack of creativity, or a number of other possibilities.
I will give two examples:
1. Skeptics do not accept ufo's to the point of denial or ridicule. I accept that there is a good chance they are real. I am skeptical that life is rare in the galaxy. I am skeptical that intelligent life would not seek intelligent life (we have proof that's true, WE do it). I am skeptical that intelligent life is not seeking us. This is in great contrast to "organized skeptics", who, given the same information as me, have went with the public view. You can claim it's because there's no "proof", but those same skeptics will say they do believe alien life exists (at least microbial) because the odds are overwhelming. There is still no proof, so you should deny it, right?
2. Skeptics (in general) do not accept that 9/11 may have been an inside job. This is generally true with any conspiracy. I begin by assessing all the factors I am aware of, continue researching, then rationalize the most believable and realistic story. "Skeptics" on the other hand, will begin with the "public record" of the event, then accept it as fact. A conspiracy is simply two or more people planning an illegal or immoral act. Conspiracies are real. This is happening hundreds of times a day around the world. Many large scale conspiracies have been proven, so lets drop the fear of the word "conspiracy". A well planned conspiracy is very hard to prove, but that does not mean it did not happen. Accepting the public record along with everyone else without questioning it is a logical fallacy.
I know I will get many angry replies from skeptics since when you question someone's way of thinking, they will probably respond angrily. Especially when they are in larger numbers than the person they are attacking.
I guess my basic statement is that (sometimes) if something can't be proven or disproven, skeptics will start by resorting to the public opinion instead of using logic and mathematics to decide which "side" to be skeptical of.
For example, if you knew for a fact that person X or person Y killed person A, and more evidence points to person X, but person Y is convicted, would a skeptic be skeptical that X did it, or skeptical that the jury was wrong? If there is no "proof" either way, does that mean neither of them did it? What if person X or Y was a police officer and friends with the lawyers or judge? There are so many variables, how would you even know which side to be skeptical of? In cases like that, I do not understand how skepticism is decided. I decide with reason, but sometimes come out opposing skeptics.
Have skeptics ever disagreed on which side to be skeptical of?
- Login to post comments
Forgive my grammatical errors, my "preview comment" was solid white so I just decided to post and review later, but it won't let me fix it. I hate when I modify my sentences a few times and they end up getting mangled :\
I consider myself a skeptic.
I don't believe in UFO's or even believe they are likely. I think that we would have more evidence that would point to such a conclusion or even to consider it a possibility I think we would have more evidence rather than grainy pictures and stories from hicks.
I am skeptical of the people that claim to believe in UFO's that aren't capable of presenting a reasonable case. I believe that life off of earth is plausible and I think we will eventually find evidence of it, but I don't see a good reason to believe that they interfere with our regular lives and perform anal probes.
What incidents of the scale of 9/11 were arranged internally?
I haven't seen a great case for the conspiracy of an internally instigated 9/11, where as there is seemingly endless evidence for the public record to be a legit case including a lot of developed history of this kind of activity as well as continued activity. The size of the event and the location of it were perhaps the only things of any surprsie at all, but the act itself seems perfectly sensible within the confines of what they are capable of.
I don't see a reason to give you an angry reply, just a justification of why I don't see a reason to be overly skeptical. I don't tend to buy into the large scale conspiracies without a reason to. It's a slippery slope to where you are just overly skeptical beyond the ability to function properly so I reserve my skepticism for things that provide a reason to be skeptical.
In your example, why was person Y convicted if more evidence pointed to person X? Surely there's a reason for that. Are you suggesting a jury conspiracy to wrongfully imprison someone? Well that's why there is an appeal process. People are deemed innocent until proven guilty. If the proof is non-conclusive, then the person should be deemed innocent.
And sure skeptics disagree which side to be skeptical of, but if there's a good reason to be skeptical of both sides then a good skeptical will remain skeptic of both sides.
There is a big leap between saying UFOs are real, which is just something that you saw flying and you didn't know what it was, and that it was a space alien.
With 9-11, I also think that it would be an extrordinary claim to say that a missile hit the pentagon, or that the twin towers were a controlled demolition.
The reason I think this is because of the mountain of evidence that it really was Muslim extremists flying planes into buildings is overwhelming, if you look.
Now if you want to talk about how we went to Iraq under false pretenses, I agree. Just pointing out that because I think that the ideas proposed on "Loose Change" are not true, does not mean that I am a dupe for the official explanation.
I think organized skeptics and atheists are natural allies. The problem is that so many skeptics try to treat religion with kid gloves. I've seen Shermer be as harsh as any RRS member, but also extremely wishy washy when he debated D'Souza.
I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you about the organized skeptic movement being just a bunch of dogmatic dupes.
Your life is a love story!
I couldn't agree more Mr. Atheist.
It has to be a combination of applying Occam's Razor, scientific inquiry, and being open minded.
Joe Nickel, who is probably the most organized skeptic among organized skeptics, and is famous for debunking the Shroud of Turin among other things, says that when you engage in a skeptical investigation you cannot just dismiss the claims off-hand.
Of course most of us don't have time to do as Joe Nickel does and travel to Italy and steal a piece of the Shroud of Turin and have it chemically analized.
So we have to read up on the work of others who do this kind of thing.
This kind of thing has been done ad-nauseum for 9-11 and UFOs.
Though I will restate, there is a big stretch between believing in UFOs and assuming that they are space aliens.
I have seen plenty of shit flying that I couldn't identify.
Your life is a love story!
I did not intend for 9/11 or UFO's to be the point of the thread (although I knew they would be), I do not want it to be. Those are just examples of how I think differently but still with skepticism.
Those are the two main points. I have a feeling those will not be addressed directly, but instead, my examples will be attacked.
I think I did address both of those.
Space travel and astrobiology have been my biggest interests my whole life. I am not an astronaut or biologist, but I have been studying a LOT on my own (for about 20 years) on the subject. I only hear denial from people that have just heard of "little green men", and "redneck reports" from people that do not care about the subject or have spent very little time researching it. I noticed the same thing about 9/11. I researched it for 5 years, but people that researched it for 1 day are quick to disagree with me. I would like to find someone that has researched either of those two topics as much as me and still disagree. I am sure they are out there, but they're hard to find.
That is the problem with my original question "Have skeptics ever disagreed on which side to be skeptical of?". This should only be the case when something can not be proven or disproven, but is only dependant on the amount of research done. I am skeptical that anyone that has not researched those two topics in depth can give an educated opinion on them.
I would strongly disagree with myself if I said that too.
Oh boy, it seem that someone has a simple case of "dont hurt the other side's feelings".
Theists think as much as we do that the other has the truth and the other does not. Beyond that, what does humanity do? Do theists stick atheists in an oven? Do atheists stick theists in an oven? No, that has unfortunalty been tried before and for humanity's sake, did not work.
I think your objection is to group think. But groups will happen. Be it theist or atheist we all gravitate to that which we are familure with.
The issue is simple, EVIDENCE. Evidence is not something the atheist or theist decides, it is something, if to be found, will transend. Gravity is evident to the atheist and theist. Death will happen to both the atheist and theist.
Your objection is that some "skeptics" like the boxing ring, while others prefure the library approach.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'm happy that you've found enjoyment in investigating those things. I have yet to year any remotely compelling peice of evidence towards either.
Since you are so well researched, and our opinions don't matter because we have not invested as much time as you, why don't you present the evidence that you have found to support either claim and we can discuss those evidences.
Like I said, I am not going to be skeptical of something that does not justify skepticism. So provide a reason to be skeptical. I am skeptical within the realm of reason. There is no reason to be skeptical that I exist, because I don't see compelling reason to debate that I don't exist. I have not seen any compelling reason to be skeptical that religious extremists attacked the US and that UFO's don't exist. Since my skepticism does not meet up to your standards and you have invested so much time I expect by now you'd have some rather compelling reasons to be skeptical.
Of course skeptics disagree about which ideas should be subject to skepticism. The default scientific position is skepticism towards any given hypothesis, but scientists take opposing positions all the time. Evidence can be constructed and interpreted in a variety of different ways.
However, there are varying degrees of levels of evidence. Certain propositions have very strong evidentiary support and others have less. No one is arguing that gravity doesn't exist, but we might argue about the rate at which climate change is occurring.
In weighing the evidentiary support for propositions that we have no direct evidence for or against, we have to be very careful. I have never been to Australia. The only evidence I have that it exists consists of statements made by other people.
We may not even have complete confidence in our own existence. But based on our best judgement of the reality we perceive around us, we all make rules about what types of evidence to accept and what types of evidence to discount.
The law has an intricate body of work describing which types of evidence are admissible and which aren't. So does your brain.
We can't just reduce this complex web of evaluating criteria to the ad populum argument. Of course some weight should be given to opinions that it seems are overwhelmingly accepted. But atheists have already made the decision to weight other criteria more highly. And there are plenty of other criteria to consider: internal and logical consistency, opinions of experts/peer reviewed journals, and consistency with observed phenomena.
The UFO example is interesting, because it is hard to know what to believe. It has been presented so many times by lunatics and weirdos with so many unrealistic and incoherent details, that it is hard to find any reason to look more closely at the evidence. Viewed from afar, the body of reporting regarding UFOs seems more akin to fiction than science.
Of course, you are right, it does seem likely that extraterrestrial life exists. However, we don't know that it is likely that they are here already, or that they could exist without general human knowledge of the details of their trespass.
http://positivethought.org