Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Don't be a lazy skeptic!


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1    UM-Bot

UM-Bot

    News, media and articles

  • 6,196 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • Beep Boop

Posted 09 July 2014 - 09:48 AM

<strong class='bbc'>Image credit: Wikipedia</strong>
Image credit: Wikipedia
Kathleen Meadows: I work in a field that draws skeptics in droves.  Iím sure most people visiting this site are well accustomed to that skeptical smirk, unless you keep your visits to this site secretive or pretend to be one of them. All explorers throughout time have wondered what makes people resistant to new directions.  What is at the root of skepticism and what is the best approach to take when someone expresses skepticism at something we find fascinating and worthy of further exploration?

Posted Image View: Full Article

This is an official comment thread for a main site news story, article or video.
Please keep comments civil and on topic.
Thank you.

#2    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,409 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 09 July 2014 - 07:26 PM

*
POPULAR

From the opinion piece:

"They don’t abdicate their positions very easily however, no matter how much evidence is presented to prove the viability of this new discovery or invention. Experiencing evidence with their own senses doesn't necessarily lead to believing."


Seriously?  This coming from a professional psychic and tarot card reader.

Somehow I don't think evidence means what she thinks it means.


Edited by Rafterman, 09 July 2014 - 07:26 PM.

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
                                                                                                                                           - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

#3    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,410 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 09 July 2014 - 11:35 PM

*
POPULAR

From reading the article it appears Ms Meadows makes the common mistake of lumping cynicism, disbelief and nonbelief all under the banner of 'skepticism'. None of those are skepticism, however, so much of the article is a strawman.

As for what skepticism 'brings to the table'? It promotes the proper evaluation of claims independent of any one person's particular bias and so, hopefully, leading to the discovery of whatever cause might be responsible for an effect.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#4    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,409 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 09 July 2014 - 11:41 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 09 July 2014 - 11:35 PM, said:

From reading the article it appears Ms Meadows makes the common mistake of lumping cynicism, disbelief and nonbelief all under the banner of 'skepticism'. None of those are skepticism, however, so much of the article is a strawman.

As for what skepticism 'brings to the table'? It promotes the proper evaluation of claims independent of any one person's particular bias and so, hopefully, leading to the discovery of whatever cause might be responsible for an effect.

Well said.  And if I might add, actually looking for a cause instead of stopping at "because gods/ghosts/aliens/bigfoot/etc."

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
                                                                                                                                           - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

#5    Mikko-kun

Mikko-kun

    Drifter

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,970 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Outdoors

  • How much do you don't see?

Posted 14 July 2014 - 12:59 PM

View PostRafterman, on 09 July 2014 - 11:41 PM, said:

Well said.  And if I might add, actually looking for a cause instead of stopping at "because gods/ghosts/aliens/bigfoot/etc."

We all should know what's the real deal here. You can stop at gods/ghosts and such, you can ignore them altogether, or you can see if there's a fitting picture to be formed with them in it, without restricting yourself from the mainstream science.

Scepticism is basically restrictiveness. The target of scepticism can be anything, and the word sceptic is just known to be used from people who advocate certain kind of sciences and explanations over others. In that sense it's no different from how we know the word believer, it's base favoritism. TRUE scepticism, not selective scepticism, is to spend more time evaluating WHATEVER you use, not just cherry-pick things you like to be sceptical at. Unless true scepticism includes the idea that you follow your whim = not being sceptical to your whim.

Wherever there's a problem, there's solutions.
Answers are found from a wide deep perspective, from opened mind's eyes.
From where good and bad stay silent and you hear the real cause and effect, and big picture.
Giving up is wasting your time, but also necessary to find the true cause you didn't find yet.
Staying in the path is necessary only when there's trueness in that path.

#6    Yaro

Yaro

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • If supernatural claims does not adhere to observed reality, then without proof, it's useless to observed reality

Posted 16 July 2014 - 10:38 PM

Last time I checked, skepticism was not a position, but a method. In cases where skeptics aren't real-life equivalent of internet Trolls, they appear more open-minded than most believers. It's quite irrational have any unfounded belief for the sole sake of wonder and satisfaction in the world. And the constant arguing for "it might be true tomorrow", albeit may be true, as well it might not. It's a argument from ignorance. No proof? Then its automatically true! No, it is not. Around 2,5 millenia back the Ptolemaic view of the solar system was the reality for them. What happened was that we refined our knowledge and learned how nature operates, to a more accurate degree. No scientific discovery is absolute, it's all a matter the amount of evidence in support of a claim and how high the probability is in it's favor. Because that is actually what skepticism is; reviewing a claim, putting it to tests and discard or approve if it is compatible to corroborative and provisional data that has already been established.

Skeptics have a closed mind? What about people who get offended by simply hearing an observation made, will never be intellectually honest and admit ignorance or chose to not even offer a fair caveat in favor of what skepticism really have accomplished. Hypocrisy - according to me - is only justified if the advice or message is a good one within a certain context. But this, this more like propaganda of a disparaging sort.


#7    Draco20

Draco20

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined:02 Jun 2013

Posted 17 July 2014 - 02:05 AM

View PostYaro, on 16 July 2014 - 10:38 PM, said:

Skeptics have a closed mind? What about people who get offended by simply hearing an observation made, will never be intellectually honest and admit ignorance or chose to not even offer a fair caveat in favor of what skepticism really have accomplished. Hypocrisy - according to me - is only justified if the advice or message is a good one within a certain context. But this, this more like propaganda of a disparaging sort.

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosphy, the origin of the term 'skeptic' is:

''The term “skeptic” derives from a Greek noun, skepsis, which means examination, inquiry, consideration.''

Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/skepanci/

Unfortunately, it's ancient meaning seems to have been lost along the way for many. We can take these skeptics associations for exemple, whose main goal it appears to me, is the automatic rejections of every concept, idea that doesn't not fit in a pure materialistic science. There is no room left for examination, inquiry or consideration.

Edited by sam_comm, 17 July 2014 - 02:24 AM.


#8    Draco20

Draco20

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined:02 Jun 2013

Posted 17 July 2014 - 02:18 AM

View PostRafterman, on 09 July 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

Seriously?  This coming from a professional psychic and tarot card reader.

Somehow I don't think evidence means what she thinks it means.

I think she is describing what has been coined as pseudoskepticism in the sentence you quoted from the When Skepticism is Not Love part of her opinion article.

The RationalWiki itself describe this as:

''The correct, though less common, use of the term refers to those who declare themselves merely "skeptical" of a concept, but in reality would not be convinced by any evidence. Common targets of this kind of pseudoskepticism are global warming,[1] evolution, AIDS, and GMOs. This essentially is cloaked denialism, as there is a vast amount of real evidence which is willfully ignored by these pseudoskeptics. Saying "I am skeptical of X" seems more reasonable than saying "I don't accept X and never will regardless of the evidence", even if the latter is more accurate.''

Source: http://rationalwiki....seudoskepticism

Overall I think it's an interesting opinion paper. I agree with her on many points. Also, psychic or taro reader, her beliefs and controversial practices does not change the fact that she is educated, has a Master's Degree in psychology of Religion and it does not invalidate her points. I don't get the sens that she is ''against'' skepticism at all, she actually recognize the benefits and contributions of it's use, but rather pseudoskepticism which is not uncommon these days.

Edited by sam_comm, 17 July 2014 - 02:42 AM.


#9    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,409 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 17 July 2014 - 11:07 AM

View Postsam_comm, on 17 July 2014 - 02:18 AM, said:



I think she is describing what has been coined as pseudoskepticism in the sentence you quoted from the When Skepticism is Not Love part of her opinion article.

The RationalWiki itself describe this as:

''The correct, though less common, use of the term refers to those who declare themselves merely "skeptical" of a concept, but in reality would not be convinced by any evidence. Common targets of this kind of pseudoskepticism are global warming,[1] evolution, AIDS, and GMOs. This essentially is cloaked denialism, as there is a vast amount of real evidence which is willfully ignored by these pseudoskeptics. Saying "I am skeptical of X" seems more reasonable than saying "I don't accept X and never will regardless of the evidence", even if the latter is more accurate.''

Source: http://rationalwiki....seudoskepticism

Overall I think it's an interesting opinion paper. I agree with her on many points. Also, psychic or taro reader, her beliefs and controversial practices does not change the fact that she is educated, has a Master's Degree in psychology of Religion and it does not invalidate her points. I don't get the sens that she is ''against'' skepticism at all, she actually recognize the benefits and contributions of it's use, but rather pseudoskepticism which is not uncommon these days.

Unfortunately for most of these woo peddlers, it's only pseudo-skepticism when it disagrees with their position.

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
                                                                                                                                           - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

#10    Yaro

Yaro

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • If supernatural claims does not adhere to observed reality, then without proof, it's useless to observed reality

Posted 17 July 2014 - 12:12 PM

View Postsam_comm, on 17 July 2014 - 02:05 AM, said:


Unfortunately, it's ancient meaning seems to have been lost along the way for many. We can take these skeptics associations for exemple, whose main goal it appears to me, is the automatic rejections of every concept, idea that doesn't not fit in a pure materialistic science. There is no room left for examination, inquiry or consideration.

Yes, there may very well be those who misuse skepticism for different reasons, mostly biases based on preconceptions. However, proper use of skepticism should view new claims through the lens of the scientific method. So far, it's the best method we have to root out any hypothesis that doesn't concur with observations or established facts.


#11    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,519 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 17 July 2014 - 05:39 PM

I thought that the strawmen of what skeptics and skepticism actually are in this article were too numerous to really be worth rebutting.  It's a product of 'fear and pride', really?  How did we conclude this?  I ask because the main method I can think of by which one comes to that conclusion is partly what this article is criticizing:  laziness.

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#12    Draco20

Draco20

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined:02 Jun 2013

Posted 17 July 2014 - 06:20 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 17 July 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

I thought that the strawmen of what skeptics and skepticism actually are in this article were too numerous to really be worth rebutting.  It's a product of 'fear and pride', really?  How did we conclude this?  I ask because the main method I can think of by which one comes to that conclusion is partly what this article is criticizing:  laziness.

Some self-proclaimed skeptics ask for evidence or proper studies yet dodge and dismiss what has been put forward. They tend to continually raise the bar of their <<requirements>> to reject new data that contradict their views. They simply cannot and will not reconsider their views because their minds are firmly made. To have debated these controversial topics for some time, that's how I've reached this conclusion.

As Marcello Truzzi, Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University puts the finger on:

''Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on  them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary  to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical  evidence.

Source: http://www.anomalist...ies/pseudo.html

Fear and pride, I do not know. It is clear though that when you advocate against something so fiercely and for so long, it might be painfully hard to accept the possibilty that you were wrong. It goes for both side, the skeptic or the believer. It's Human nature.

Edited by sam_comm, 17 July 2014 - 06:50 PM.


#13    Draco20

Draco20

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined:02 Jun 2013

Posted 17 July 2014 - 06:26 PM

View PostRafterman, on 17 July 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

Unfortunately for most of these woo peddlers, it's only pseudo-skepticism when it disagrees with their position

I don't know Ms Meadows personally and have never debated with her so I prefer not to make an hasty judgement.

What is clear though is that pseudoskepticism is more common than many care to admit.

''Susan Blackmore, who lost her initial belief in parapsychology and in 1991 became a CSICOP fellow, later described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":


There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion.[11]''


Source: http://en.wikipedia....seudoskepticism

Edited by sam_comm, 17 July 2014 - 06:33 PM.


#14    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 17 July 2014 - 07:09 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 17 July 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

I thought that the strawmen of what skeptics and skepticism actually are in this article were too numerous to really be worth rebutting.  It's a product of 'fear and pride', really?  How did we conclude this?  I ask because the main method I can think of by which one comes to that conclusion is partly what this article is criticizing:  laziness.

Laziness, or fear of discovering something that might contradict one's view at the moment?


#15    psyche101

psyche101

    The Customer.

  • Member
  • 38,309 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 18 July 2014 - 04:44 AM

I'd comment, but I am too lazy to do so.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users