Talk:Scientific skepticism
|
|
- Archive 1 - 2004 February and before
POV is anti-skeptic
This page has gone to hell without my intervention. It's become Reddi's little anti-skeptic page. I'll fix it up and remove those silly Boerner quotes, the guy is nuts and is a liar. Reddi, stick to traditional science, not psychic power crap. What B.S... - Lord Kenneth 04:16, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Kenny ... all the content is cited and verifiable. Check the references.
- Sincerely, JDR
And your references are ridiculous, amateurish idiocy. The web site you cite even advocates the idea of alien abductions. I'm not allowing your trash. - Lord Kenneth 01:36, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
- 1 stop your psuedoskeptical points. Your are not a skeptic, but a psuedoskeptic.
- The points are valid and verifiable.
- JDR
You are insane. - Lord Kenneth 15:51, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
It appears that this page is going to be protected for a long, long time, because I cannot come to an agreement with lies, distortions, and inaccuracies that Reddi cites. - Lord Kenneth 16:13, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
Psuedoskeptics and Skeptical exclusionist
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Scientific_skepticism&oldid=2652731) is the one that has balance. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Scientific_skepticism&oldid=2652759) is the one that does not have balance. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Scientific_skepticism&dummy=1&diff=2652759&oldid=2652731) is the Diff.
- 2kenny ...
- What lies? please explicitly state ...
- What distortions? please explicitly state ...
- What inaccuracies? please explicitly state ...
- Generally, it's appearant that hard core skeptics [along with the psuedoskeptics (like Kenny above)] are not going to acknowledge the cited and verifiable information.
- Sincererly, JDR [PS. it seems funny to me that the article can cite the "they laughed at" citation [which wasn't acknoledged; read as "copyright violation"] ... but not the citation over "skeptics vs sun-centered solar system"]
As much as I'd love to point out all the ridiculous claims and strawman arguments in your citations, I'm too busy to sit around and debate with someone who can hardly think, let alone spell. If I cited a source that said aliens abduct humans and claimed it as fact, it would still be ridiculous. This is an encyclopedia, not a sci-fi novel. - Lord Kenneth 00:33, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Put down the pipe, Kenny. JDR
Put down the bong, Reddi. - Lord Kenneth 00:46, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Get off the crack, Kenny JDR
I'm afraid it's painfully obvious that I'm the sober one here. - Lord Kenneth 01:53, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
- it's painfully obvious that you are a crackhead. JDR
hehehe... you guys are a hoot...
but seriously, Reddi, if you indeed believe you are correct in placing your comments about UFOs and abductions in this article, then I think you may be misguided in your skepticism. A true skeptic must be able to question everything, but he must also NOT base his beliefs on anecdotal evidence. That leads to a cherry-picking of data to 'prove' a viewpoint, instead of trying hard to 'disprove' it. In your case, if you believe in UFOs, you should try extra hard to disprove their existence.
Just because you dont believe 'mainstream' science, doesn't make you a skeptic. Its a start, but that's all. --Bex 19:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
quick note
Is it nescesary to point out that scientific skepticism is a bit of a misnomer, because scientific skepticism and science are orthogonal? (if not occaisionally downright opposed ;-) ). Hmm, it's lightly mentioned in the article.
Science appears to have a different measure of truth to scientific skepticism.
Short version:
- In science, all statements are probably false, they just haven't been falsified yet. Statements go from {false but not (yet) disproved} to {false and disproved}.
- Contrast scientific skepticism, which says you must have proof for a statement, and statements go from {false} to {true} at the moment the statement is somehow proven.
Having said that, it looks like I can actually defend a stronger position than I set out with. I could probably get away with saying that scientific skepticism is in fact unscientific!
I'd have to find someone who actually said that before I'm allowed to put it in the main article though. Perhaps Richard Feynman would be a good place to start looking.
Kim Bruning 15:05, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) (+ later edits Kim Bruning 17:11, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC))
Okay, further reading suggests that I'm not the first person to have this kind of criticism. At some point it might be interesting to add some common defences or answers to this criticism. Kim Bruning 23:31, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- That's not scientific skepticism. Scientific skeptics don't believe in "absolute proof" either. Science and scientific skepticism are closely linked. You don't understand what you are talking about, and I have a feeling if you start to argue with me you're going to redefine scientific skepticism.
- In science, nothing is truly "proven", and nothing is truly "disproven". However, scientists (and of course scientific skeptics) agree that enough evidence is enough to call something fact. They are certainly not contradictory-- they are closely related! Tell any scientist that it the world being an oblate spheriod is most likely wrong and you'll be laughed at, because the evidence is overwhelming.
- I don't think you read the article on this. The scientific skepticism I am familiar with is certainly not like anything you posit. Also, your view of science resembles "armchair philosophy". - Lord Kenneth 00:46, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
Well:
The article claims for scientific skepticism:
" Scientific Skepticism (...) is a (...) position (...) in which one does not accept the veracity of claims until solid evidence is produced. "
Alright, so that says we start with a hypotheses (claims), and if we get enough proof for it (when we have solid evidence), we call it a fact. And we do so until a better hypothesis comes along perhaps (the article makes a point of provisionality a bit further along).
Using ascii art to put it schematically:
- hypothesis -> mounting proof -> provisional fact
- better hypothesis -> mounting proof -> better provisional fact
From scientific method, we find that for scientists things tend to go in the opposite direction:
- hypothesis -> mounting disproof -> drop it & new hypothesis
So there appears to be a bit of a discrepancy between the two positions, at least within wikipedia.
Regardless of merit, this might make the wikipedia somewhat self-contradictory.
Kim Bruning 13:56, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- There is no discrepancy. You don't know what you're talking about. In science, things aren't true until proven wrong. That would make every single unfalsifiable theory accepted as fact. Things are true when enough evidence accumulates in its favor. Take evolution. We find more and more fossils which only validate the already extremely-accepted theory. When a better explanation able to explain the data better comes along, the old theory is dropped in favor of a better-supported one.
- Again, tell a scientists that the fact that the world is an oblate spheriod is most likely wrong will laugh at you, because there is so much evidence in its favor. You're just using words in a way that brings about confusion. Yes, results which conflict with the hypothesis are "disproof", as you put it. But results which echo the hypothesis are also "proof". Yes scientists do try to see if you can make a hypothesis wrong under certain condictions. But in a similar way, that doesn't mean that fossils can't be evidence of evolution becaus scientists do seek to "disprove" evolution.
- To put it shortly: Ask a scientist what the evidence is for the earth being an oblate spheriod and he will tell you. He won't say "Well, nothing's disproved it yet...". - Lord Kenneth 17:15, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, in science there's no such thing as facts or truth at all really. It's something you have to live with. If you want a fact, you can try an empirical data point, if that makes you happy. I'm not sure what you'd do with it though. If you want truth then maybe you can adopt a strong theory. Great, and what are you going to do with it, bury it in your garden :-)? Just don't think you're being scientific when doing so, because once you have your truth and your facts, what are you going to do with them? Science is an intensely practical philosophy that wants to be used.
- A scientist will aim to make up new hypotheses big and small and then break them all day long. If they do their work right, then in the long run they'll be learning new things about nature in the process.
- There exist unfalsifiable hypotheses sure. But if a hypothesis is hard to falsify, it probably won't be able to predict much either. If it can't predict much, you can't test it very well, so it won't be very scientific (or useful). So scientists usually go around making up very falsifiable hypotheses indeed. The more predictive, (and the more falsifiable) the better.
- But all this may or may not have something to do with scientific skepticism. That's what you've got me wondering about.
- Kim Bruning 09:18, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, the sci.skeptic FAQ (http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skeptic.shtml) and Philosophy of science seem to agree with each other (and with my view of things too), but -subtly- do not agree with this article. See above for the full rant. I'm trying to figure out how it can be fixed. Any ideas? Kim Bruning 12:44, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Reread article now, but it's already much improved. Only the intro perhaps :-) Kim Bruning 13:02, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)