Talk:Skepticism
|
|
Probably because I am a skeptic (and a "global skeptic" at that), this article appears not to be even close to the neutral point of view to me. I thought about editing it, but am a bit discouraged because of the size of it; The article is an integral whole, and to edit it one would have to edit all of it, which is a bit too large a task for me. What approach should one use to such a project? Perhaps a dividing line as in randomness, where one rewrites a part at a time from a NPOV above the line? I would be grateful if anyone commented to help a wikinewbie, or perhaps started working on it.
/W
- First I thought "Hey, Larry wrote this. He's Mister NPOV in persona, how can W dare?". Than I read the article. And You are right. It's not really NPOV. Perhaps leave a note at Larry's User talk and ask him to work on the article together with you. -- JeLuF
It's a segment of User:Larrys Text, his lecture notes from a philosophy course he taught some undergrads once -- it was never meant to be NPOV... but we were meant to NPOVify it... so go ahead and do so... -- Anonymoues 09:04 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)
- Yeah, my line of reasoning was more like "this doesn't fit in as a wiki article at all, the entire form will have to be edited". I realize now there's nothing wrong with editing parts of it and changing it's form; a clash of forms will simply encourage even more editing by others :) W
As you consider edits here, W, I have to point out that I was quite surprised to see the initial statements being in the negative - that we can have no knowledge, or only limited knowledge.
Perhaps this is the philosophical technical term; but I think skeptics such as James Randi (see link at bottom of subject page), or CSICOP, or other Skeptical Societies, would hardly qualify themselves as denying the possibility of knowledge; instead, they seem to make a distinction between knowledge and belief (with heavy reliance on common sense and scientific method as distinguishing factors).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding Larry's Text; or perhaps "skeptic" as a common term has a different exact meaning? At any rate, as a non-philosopher (and skeptic in the James Randi-sense), thought I'd throw in that as at least something to be discussed. Cheers - Chas zzz brown 22:50 Nov 2, 2002 (UTC)
Actually, the philosophical term is scepticist, not sceptic, but I've a nasty habit of writing the wrong word (many others suffer the same habit which doesn't help). Sorry if I caused any missunderstanding W 23:30 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)
I agree that scepticist would be a more sensible term, but it's very rarely used. Common usage makes "sceptic" the proper term. (Common usage not meaning the man on the street; I'm talking Chisholm, BonJour, textbooks, philosophical encyclopedias, etc.) GW 16:10 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
I think some counter points of view are badly needed for balance in this article. That's why I put the external link back in. Grizzly 22:50 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The quote near the very end of this article is one of those things that makes me love Wikipedia...Hyacinth
The list of debunkers should include the Indian skeptic Basava Premanand who was a full time skeptic and publisher and editor of the Indian Skeptic. His most famous and frequent target was my former guru Sathya Sai Baba He also appeared on Dutch TV and was recently in a radio programme on the BBC. Andries
Two more things that should be added.
- the obvious pay off of skepticism i.e. not believing in things that are untrue. False beliefs have consequences which can be very harmful.this can save people from
- The danger of skepticism i.e. not believing things that are true
- I can think of one clear example of this in the case of scientific skepticism and that was that at a certain time of history all the stone that were told to be meteorites by traditional belief were ridiculed by scientists who thought this belief superstitious. Later it turned out that these stones had really fallen from space on earth.
Oh, by the way I have replaced brianists by agnosticists. Links to internet parody religions like Brianisism should have no place in a serious article like skepticism Andries
(*sigh*) Having led to the lockdown of the Scientific Skepticism page by waging an edit war, it seems that Lord Kenneth is now bent on doing the same to this article as well, for example removing any links to material that do not meet his own rather narrow POV, and leaving in only those links that reflect his own biases.
Frankly, I don't at this point see what the distinction between these two articles is supposed to be. Was it not to be primarily a disambiguation page to distinguish scientific skepticism from other forms of skepticism? Grizzly 21:34, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Many critics of skeptics traditionally mischaracterize their views to include bias against theories in which they are affected negatively by, such as the Catholic church's rejection of heliocentric theory. Resistence to such claims are not necessarily by those who profess to be scientific skeptics but because of dogmas and hostilitiy to the particular findings.
These syntax of these two sentences does not parse. Would whoever inserted the above paragraph please rewrite it, in grammatically-correct English, and put it back? Please include examples as well: the above is vague -- who are these "many critics"? -- and weaselly. — No-One Jones (talk) 21:57, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Many critics of skeptics (Who are these "many critics"? Wikipedia users don't count, unless they're famous elsewhere as critics of skepticism. Avoid weasel terms.) traditionally mischaracterize and exaggerate their views to include bias against theories in which they have a personal stake in, or perhaps for allegedly being "closed-minded". ("Many critics of skeptics" is a compound subject. The word "skeptics" is not the object of this sentence.) Others (Who are they?) point to examples such as the Catholic church's rejection of heliocentric theory as being unreasonable hostility towards a legitimate theory by scientific skeptics (Who says this? Wikipedia users, again, do not count.). However, resistence to such claims are (Which claims?) not necessarily by those who profess to follow scientific skepticism (Proof? Examples? Citations?) but by those with preconceived notions and personal biases (Is this supposed to claim that science is free of all preconceived notions? If so, read up on foundationalism.), as is the case with the Catholic church's rejection of heliocentric theory.
Please try again, this time with references for the challenged claims. — No-One Jones (talk) 23:48, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
For Lord Kenneth: I am not your English teacher, and I dislike spelling and grammar flames, but since you asked (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Skepticism&action=history), here are the problems with this paragraph:
- Many critics of skeptics traditionally mischaracterize and exaggerate their views to include bias against theories in which they have a personal stake in,
("in which they have a personal stake in"? Ye cats!) *ahem* "Many critics of skeptics" is a compound subject; the word "skeptics" is part of this compound. The clause does not make it clear whose ideas are being mischaracterized and exaggerated; with this phrasing, it sounds like the critics are mischaracterizing and exaggerating their own ideas -- which is silly.
or perhaps for allegedly being "closed-minded".
Using the subject and verb from the previous clause, with the verbiage trimmed, produces this: "Many critics of skeptics mischaracterize and exaggerate their views for being closed-minded." Because the views are closed-minded, they are being mischaracterized and exaggerated? Using "for" implies that closed-mindedness is the reason that these views receive this treatment. Also, who are these critics? I want names.
- Others point to examples such as the Catholic church's rejection of heliocentric theory as being unreasonable hostility towards a legitimate theory by scientific skeptics.
This is at least grammatical, but who did this? JDR doesn't count, as he is not a recognized critic of skepticism. Again, I want names.
- However, resistence to such claims are not necessarily by those who profess to follow scientific skepticism but by those with preconceived notions and personal biases, as is the case with the Catholic church's rejection of heliocentric theory.
"Resistance are"‽ And to which claims are you referring? The claims of those who believe that rejection of heliocentrism was the fault of religious authority, or the claims of those who believe that the same rejection was the fault of scientific skeptics? Furthermore, it seems you're implying "skeptic = free of any preconceived notions", which is wrong; scientific skepticism, which depends on an empiricist epistemology, is not at all free from preconceptions. (See foundationalism, philosophical skepticism, and regress argument.)
Anyway, the grammar is a secondary issue; much more problematic are the unsupported polemics. If you want to address the critics of scientific skepticism in this manner, by all means do so, but please provide some evidence for your claims. — No-One Jones (talk) 01:42, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- How interesting. You kept on reverting to Reddi's changes on Scientific_skepticism, which included many similarly unsupported statements. The reason I posted about the heliocentric theory here was because of Reddi's statement there. What a horrible reeking of bias! You fell right into my trap.
- Also, I'm familiar with science being based on empricism. If you want critics accusing skeptics of being closed-minded, just go to any skeptic's message board and look for the paranormalist trolls. Or, you could look up anyone who believes in psychic powers, they are usually quick to call skeptics closed-minded. - Lord Kenneth 02:59, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Tosh. I reverted scientific skepticism once, to an edit that I, not Reddi, had made -- and that version had one statement similar to the stuff you wrote here, not "many". Do try to maintain some connection to reality -- it helps maintain your rapidly-slipping credibility. (And psst! The correct antidote to bad editing is not more bad editing -- that just creates ill-will and havoc.) — No-One Jones (talk) 03:11, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Well, you did insist upon putting rather controversial links from rather uncredible sources... personal anti-skeptic rant pages, really. Is that "good editing"? I think not. I removed those links for a reason. Anyway, I've added something that I think we can both agree upon in this instance. I am up for compromising. As for your credibility, I think adding those links in the first place expresses your credibility quite enough. - Lord Kenneth 03:17, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
- The current incarnation of the paragraph looks reasonable. (I also note how you've changed your story from "kept reverting to Reddi's edits" to "added controversial links" -- those controversial links being the sci.skeptic FAQ and an article about skepticism previously published in a journal of skepticism. Personal rant pages, indeed -- and adding links to writings about skepticism to an article about skepticism so diminishes my credibility, yes, you're right (http://www.wrong.com/you.jpg).)
- No, I "changed my story" because you corrected me. Imagine that! Sci.skeptic FAQ shouldn't have been deleted but it was caught up in the reverts. Myths of Skepticism contains a lot of strawman arguments and fallacies, so I removed that. I removed alternative science because it's a rant by a pseudoscientist, who happens to have no credibility. Why, let's look at his web site... cold fusion.. people with no brains in their heads... perpetual motion... gee, no wonder he criticizes skeptics! Suite101 has barely any information and is extremely cluttered. Skeptical Investigations is done not by skeptics but by pseudoscientists (Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin...), and the information it contains on famous skeptics is skewered and biased. - Lord Kenneth 03:36, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
Skepticism as Inertia
This is pure propaganda, right? Calling flat-earthers "skeptics" is just stupid. In any case the whole section is biased. It lumps all people that are skeptical of anything together - those who are skeptical of new ideas and those who are skeptical of obvious nonsense. Exactly this argumentation is frequently used by crackpots who are trying to gain acceptance by dismissing their opponents as "just some orthodox, conservative, scientists who always try to shoot down new ideas." Skeptics don't fight new ideas, they fight ideas without good evidence, which are often old ideas that don't die out. --Hob Gadling 08:48, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
................................................................................................................
Taken to extremes, any philosophy can run amok (such as religious zealots killing those who don't believe in peace). Historically, even skeptics have at times chosen to believe a certain concept rather than maintaining a sense of retaining doubt, and whenever this has happened, it has eventually looked somewhat foolish. You are correct that self-proclaimed skeptics (such as flat-earthers) are not true skeptics, since they have made the mistake of presuming that they know for sure that something (a flat earth concept, for example) is true. The strength of the skeptical mindset is that when people retain that sense of doubt, rather than adopting one idea or set of ideas over others, skeptics "walk their talk" and effectively demonstrate the principals upon which skepticism was founded.
While there are three main ways to view the function of skepticism, the common thread amongst them all is that there always be first and foremost an element of the assumption of uncertainty or doubt, rather than ever any kind of assumption of "good facts" or "good truths." Skepticism as a philosophy is based on:
(1) The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
(2) The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
(3) A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
One of the most important roles that skeptics provide to society is that of slowing down the rush to believe, regardless what it is that is being believed. There is no distinction necessary between "good" and "bad" beliefs, since today's so-called "good ideas" can very easily become tomorrow's mistakes. The wisdom of skeptical analysis is such that people remain very clear that we cannot ever presume that we know it all... at best, all we can ever achieve is a sense of slowly attaining an ever-evolving "truth" that we know for sure is not the whole truth.
--Cynthia Sue Larson 18:45, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
What she said... :)
The skeptic inertia section is NPOV for sure.
I dont understand why skepticism gets its supposed "failures" mentioned, yet it's single most success, science, get nothing.
--Kvuo 00:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This section has too much space in the article and weak overgeneralizations in place of actual substance. Not only that, but it's trying to use "Marcello Truzzi (formerly a sociology professor at Eastern Michigan University)" as if he were an notable person. That's reallllly stretching. DreamGuy 04:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)