The Huffington Post tells us why skepticism is bad...

[Iason Ouabache]

Tree Lobsters is fucking awesome!

[BabylonHoruv]

No skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others.

WTF?


"Skeptic" doesn't mean what you think it does, Deeprick.

Seems to mean Richard Dawkins to him.  That'd be the guy who founded the science of memetics.

[Cain]

Memetics ain't exactly on clear scientific ground here, lets not kid ourselves.

And besides, Dawkins made a far more massive breakthrough in biology.

[BabylonHoruv]

Memetics ain't exactly on clear scientific ground here, lets not kid ourselves.

And besides, Dawkins made a far more massive breakthrough in biology.

well yeah, I may have been using the word science a little loosely.  I jut think it is funny that Dawkins and Chopra have it in so hard for one another when they are both responsible for a lot of pretty fru fru stuff.

[Kai]

Memetics ain't exactly on clear scientific ground here, lets not kid ourselves.

And besides, Dawkins made a far more massive breakthrough in biology.

Eh....he popularized gene driven evolution for sure, but I wouldn't say he made any significant scientific breakthroughs. I can't recall any writing of his off the top of my head besides the popular nonfiction. He did quite a bit of work with animal behavior in poultry, bees and wasps back in the day (which is probably where he got his ideas on altruism and extended phenotype), but I admit I didn't know that till I checked his CV.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I would also argue that Dawkins does not write as a skeptic... at least not what I have read. He doesn't believe in the supernatural, but that does not make him a skeptic, just skeptical about some things.

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html

"Deepak" on the other hand is just "Deepshit" as far as I'm concerned.

[hooplala]

that does not make him a skeptic, just skeptical about some things.

Please explain further...

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

that does not make him a skeptic, just skeptical about some things.

Please explain further...

The difference lies in being skeptical, or in holding a negative position. While it "Could Be" confirmation bias, without evidence to prove that "It Is"confirmation bias a skeptic would not hold that position.  A skeptic shouldn't have conclusions without evidence, neither positive nor negative. Many individuals, however, will conclude in the negative without strong evidence for the positive.

So rather than saying

"I see a flaw in your experiment, variable P also needs controlled before we can determine if this is evidence that supports "

they say

"I see a flaw in your experiment. X is False."

Its a problem that many scientificcally minded people seem to fall into (Royal Society in the 1700's re: meteorites and bats using sonar for example. Or Dawkins debate with Sheldrake).

"The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans"

Is not a skeptical statement.

[Template]

Well, I'm going to post this link again...

From
http://amasci.com/weird/pyrrhon.html
:

Pyrrhonian Skepticism
2004 W. Beaty

I learned a new word!

Pyrrhonian. Pyrrrrhoooooooooooo-nian.

I'm coming to think that my difficulty with Skeptics on JREF, PhACT, SCI.SKEPTIC, etc., is that I am a Pyrrhonian, and most Skeptics are not. Pyrrhonian Skeptics think that all other skeptics are unabashed dogmatists... and see that dogmatism is the worst sin possible for any follower of Reason.
From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Three types of Skepticism:

    "Academic" or "Cartesian" Skeptics: followers of Plato's Academy.
    Reason is paramount. We cannot know anything about the future, or anything about the contents of someone else's mind, or anything about the past, or anything at all about the "external world."

    "Epistemist" Skeptics
    We CAN know about the future, we can know about the contents of someone else's mind, or about the past, or about the "external world."

    "Pyrrhonian" Skeptics
    Inquiry is paramount, and a skeptic is an inquirer. Our position is not doubt or denial or disbelief, but continual inquiry. For example, We do not believe in the reality of a god, but neither do we deny it. Nor do we say that nobody could ever know for certain one way or the other, as agnostics do. Instead we say of god, "I personally do not know at the moment but I am trying to find out."

And like Science in general, Pyrrhonian Skepticism is based on bend-over-backwards honesty, and on tenativeness, neither of which figures largely in other forms of skepticism.

Truzzi's word "Zetectic" is the same as "Pyrrhonian Skeptic."

    HIGHLY RECOMMENDED:
    More about Pyrrhonian Skepticism: Dr. P. Suber
    http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/skept.htm

    More about Academic Skepticism: Stanford Encyc. of Philos
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/

Heh. I think we should add a fourth type: Kurtzian Skepticism.

Old school CSICOP skepticism doesn't seem to fall under any of the above three classifications. Kurtzian Skepticism is more based on a battle between light and darkness, where Skeptics know the truth about religion, about the paranormal, cryptozoology, etc., and they must fight against hoards of credulous people who 'worship' ignorance, and who threaten to bring down civilization and trigger a new dark age.

A Kurtzian Skeptic knows that UFOs are crap. But if a skeptic insists that alien spaceships AREN'T visiting Earth, then that person certainly isn't a Pyrrhonian Skeptic. After all, a portion of the alien encounter reports could be true, yet we'd have little chance of separating them out from a larger number of delusions and fabrications. A Pyrrhonian Skeptic won't deny alien spaceships.

But if a skeptic insists that alien spaceships ARE visiting Earth, then again, that person wouldn't be a Pyrrhonian Skeptic. The evidence for alien visitation is too weak, so we cannot assume that aliens are visiting. (Strong evidence is more along the lines of, say, the existence of cars and computers, or even the existence of the rare Giant Squid. We need a few dead Alien bodies washed up on shore.)

Both sides of the UFO/Paranormal debate seem to hate the Pyrrhonian Skeptics. For example, JREF and online CSICOP people instantly assume that Pyrrhonians are the enemy, and then they leap to attack (after all, Pyrrhonians don't deny Yeti or alien visitation or PSI, so we're obviously on the side of the disgusting "woo-woos.") At the same time, the UFO-believers usually see Pyrrhonians as closed minded debunkers who insist on questioning all their evidence!



On the other hand, most scientists seem to be Pyrrhonians. That's why the typical member of a skeptical organization is NOT a professional scientist. That's why large numbers of scientists do NOT flock to Kurtzian-dominated skeptic organizations (and why Truzzi loudly objected to skeptical disbelief when was CSICOP first was forming, then dropped out in disgust.)

So... we have dogmatists who are sure that we're being visited by aliens, versus dogmatists who are certain that we're not: it appears to me that neither side witholds their belief before studying the evidence (or witholds their disbelief.) Neither side is genuinely curious about whether we're being visited or not. Neither side takes an unprejudiced look at the evidence, since first they'd have to admit that they don't already know the truth.

(The original had bolding/italics, but those are gone.  All emphasis here is mine.)

[Iason Ouabache]

that does not make him a skeptic, just skeptical about some things.

Please explain further...

The difference lies in being skeptical, or in holding a negative position. While it "Could Be" confirmation bias, without evidence to prove that "It Is"confirmation bias a skeptic would not hold that position.  A skeptic shouldn't have conclusions without evidence, neither positive nor negative. Many individuals, however, will conclude in the negative without strong evidence for the positive.

So rather than saying

"I see a flaw in your experiment, variable P also needs controlled before we can determine if this is evidence that supports "

they say

"I see a flaw in your experiment. X is False."

Its a problem that many scientificcally minded people seem to fall into (Royal Society in the 1700's re: meteorites and bats using sonar for example. Or Dawkins debate with Sheldrake).

"The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans"

Is not a skeptical statement.

I see that more as a artifact of being a science educator/populizer. If you use too much e-prime and speculative language while trying to teach science you lose people's attention very quickly. You come off sounding "stuffy", "nerdy", and "academical". People don't like it when you sound like a scientist. They want declarative statements. They want an authoritative voice. They want r-prime, dammit!!!

For what it's worth, Dawkins' language seems to change between his writing and when he does interviews. He uses more e-prime type language when asked if there is a god or aliens. I've heard him several times say that there is a possibility that a god of sometype exists but that it definitely isn't the God of the Bible.

The paranormal is bunk though.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

that does not make him a skeptic, just skeptical about some things.

Please explain further...

The difference lies in being skeptical, or in holding a negative position. While it "Could Be" confirmation bias, without evidence to prove that "It Is"confirmation bias a skeptic would not hold that position.  A skeptic shouldn't have conclusions without evidence, neither positive nor negative. Many individuals, however, will conclude in the negative without strong evidence for the positive.

So rather than saying

"I see a flaw in your experiment, variable P also needs controlled before we can determine if this is evidence that supports "

they say

"I see a flaw in your experiment. X is False."

Its a problem that many scientificcally minded people seem to fall into (Royal Society in the 1700's re: meteorites and bats using sonar for example. Or Dawkins debate with Sheldrake).

"The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans"

Is not a skeptical statement.

I see that more as a artifact of being a science educator/populizer. If you use too much e-prime and speculative language while trying to teach science you lose people's attention very quickly. You come off sounding "stuffy", "nerdy", and "academical". People don't like it when you sound like a scientist. They want declarative statements. They want an authoritative voice. They want r-prime, dammit!!!

For what it's worth, Dawkins' language seems to change between his writing and when he does interviews. He uses more e-prime type language when asked if there is a god or aliens. I've heard him several times say that there is a possibility that a god of sometype exists but that it definitely isn't the God of the Bible.

The paranormal is bunk though.

I'd just like to point out that E-Prime does not necessitate a timid, stuffy tone.

That sort of limp wristed approach typifies noobs failure to grapple with "is" properly.

Instead of just translating "to be" elements into "seems," people ought to think of the idea of "is" as an indicator of stagnant thought. An active voice describing procesess, operations, and agency should emerge from E-Prime rather than surface substitutions.

Reconstruct how you formulate your thoughts and sentences, or GTFO of E-Prime.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Well, I knew fuck-all about Deepak Chopra before I read this thread, except for the fact that his books are all over the Spirituality section of chain bookstores. Nice to know I shouldn't waste my time with his stuff.

[Template]

that does not make him a skeptic, just skeptical about some things.

Please explain further...

The difference lies in being skeptical, or in holding a negative position. While it "Could Be" confirmation bias, without evidence to prove that "It Is"confirmation bias a skeptic would not hold that position.  A skeptic shouldn't have conclusions without evidence, neither positive nor negative. Many individuals, however, will conclude in the negative without strong evidence for the positive.

So rather than saying

"I see a flaw in your experiment, variable P also needs controlled before we can determine if this is evidence that supports "

they say

"I see a flaw in your experiment. X is False."

Its a problem that many scientificcally minded people seem to fall into (Royal Society in the 1700's re: meteorites and bats using sonar for example. Or Dawkins debate with Sheldrake).

"The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans"

Is not a skeptical statement.

I see that more as a artifact of being a science educator/populizer. If you use too much e-prime and speculative language while trying to teach science you lose people's attention very quickly. You come off sounding "stuffy", "nerdy", and "academical". People don't like it when you sound like a scientist. They want declarative statements. They want an authoritative voice. They want r-prime, dammit!!!

For what it's worth, Dawkins' language seems to change between his writing and when he does interviews. He uses more e-prime type language when asked if there is a god or aliens. I've heard him several times say that there is a possibility that a god of sometype exists but that it definitely isn't the God of the Bible.

The paranormal is bunk though.

I'd just like to point out that E-Prime does not necessitate a timid, stuffy tone.

That sort of limp wristed approach typifies noobs failure to grapple with "is" properly.

Instead of just translating "to be" elements into "seems," people ought to think of the idea of "is" as an indicator of stagnant thought. An active voice describing procesess, operations, and agency should emerge from E-Prime rather than surface substitutions.

Reconstruct how you formulate your thoughts and sentences, or GTFO of E-Prime.

Nothing in the phrase, "Fuck You," violates E-Prime.  At least one paper on the topic used that very example.

Doesn't mean e-prime doesn't multiply stupidity.  Educate or immolate.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Nothing in the phrase, "Fuck You," violates E-Prime.  At least one paper on the topic used that very example.

Doesn't mean e-prime doesn't multiply stupidity.  Educate or immolate.

Word.

[hooplala]

The paranormal is bunk though.

Joke statement, or actual opinion?