Why does atheism so often include skepticism ...

[floppit]

I think it's fine as a thread but I must admit I still haven't the foggiest what it is about it that's upsetting - I'm not the world's most sensitive person though!

Eless, I think people are just using the example of ghosts because it has everything, people perceive ghosts, there are abundant stories, people even agree where certain ghosts reside and yet once the METHOD of scientific observation is applied the ghosts go shy. I don't think it is about saying you believe in ghosts I think it's that the topic demonstrates the strength of subjective experience to persuade and it's limits in providing evidence.

Like I said before there will always be 'cusps' to knowledge, I enjoy them and I don't think I'm alone but the reason (I think) they are enjoyable is because they highlight the need to apply careful method.

Time makes fools out of all of us, we're all in the same boat, we'll all be wrong - it just doesn't really matter in the larger scheme of things so we may as well enjoy the trip!

[Drewish]

I think it's fine as a thread but I must admit I still haven't the foggiest what it is about it that's upsetting - I'm not the world's most sensitive person though!

Eless, I think people are just using the example of ghosts because it has everything, people perceive ghosts, there are abundant stories, people even agree where certain ghosts reside and yet once the METHOD of scientific observation is applied the ghosts go shy. I don't think it is about saying you believe in ghosts I think it's that the topic demonstrates the strength of subjective experience to persuade and it's limits in providing evidence.

Like I said before there will always be 'cusps' to knowledge, I enjoy them and I don't think I'm alone but the reason (I think) they are enjoyable is because they highlight the need to apply careful method.

Time makes fools out of all of us, we're all in the same boat, we'll all be wrong - it just doesn't really matter in the larger scheme of things so we may as well enjoy the trip!

You had me until the bolded point

[floppit]

Pah - look, I'm this tiny little person on a spinning globe, I do my best at reasoning, I WILL fall short but I somehow doubt that fact will be ultimately hugely important.

Not getting too worried helps me enjoy it and enjoying it helps me put in the effort I sure as hell need to. I remember a Norwegian who once said you should have a pint every time you're wrong because to know it is to still be learning. Being wrong isn't awful, it's not a biggy, it's just about the best teacher there is - and unavoidable if a person stretches themself.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Can someone please delete this thread?

No. We don't delete threads here unless they are spam. Besides, the thread has evolved away from your OP into a discussion of skepticism in general which is a bloody good topic of discussion.

BTW El, why do you think people are attacking you personally here? I haven't seen any of that, merely a lively discussion of differing viewpoints among people that broadly agree. If you have any specific examples of personal attacks, please PM me.

What I am going to do is move the thread to General Discussion / Philosophy, because it is far to serious (and has gone on far too long without a derail) for the pub!

[Drewish]

The following is a blog post I made regarding Skeptism about 2 weeks ago.

What's Wrong With The Skeptical Movement

There are many so-called "free thought" movements or 'enlightenment' movements out there. Some have noble intentions but develop cult like qualities (See the 'New' Atheism or Objectivism) and some were complete crap to begin with (Insert New Age philosophy of choice here.) But lately there has been a movement gathering quite a bit of momentum, a group of people who like to refer to themselves as simply skeptics. They leading voices of this movement are basically anyone who posts here.

Where some movements and philosophies don't clearly define how they understand the world (a sure sign of their being crap,) skeptics propose that the world is best understood through critical thought and formal logic. This may seem fairly familiar (indeed this is nothing new) but there is another aspect to Skepticism, the notion that neuroscience and psychology show us that memory and human perception are flawed, and therefore the premises and assumptions on which we found logical arguments should be scientific studies. Or more simply put: induction in labs > personal observation.

This makes the Skeptical Movement distinct from Objectivism (which emphasizes ego and therefore places a higher value on personal experience) and the 'New' Atheism (which is inherently... well atheistic, while Skepticism is gnostic-agnostic.) Now, not all of us are scientists, and even scientists specialize in some field, so this leaves those of us without home laboratories at the mercy of scientific research done elsewhere. Now that isn't even so bad, we can always read up on the studies being presented if we want. (Well, actually we can't always do that, because then we'd have to spend every night and day doing reading up on research just to make sure that it's valid.) So eventually the Skeptics must trust the scientists to give them the knowledge base they need in order to reach their logical conclusions and form an informed Skeptical position.

There's just one major flaw in this: scientists lie. Yes believe it or not, many scientists have an agenda, we call them sociologists, psychologists, and economists. Generally if someone is in one of the "gray sciences" (grey sciences if you're American) then they're not really a scientists as there's absolutely no causality in any of those 'sciences,' it's all just correlation. Here's another thing, who's paying for the science? You want politically 'right' leaning science? Find some business funded research. Want some politically 'left' leaning science? Try government funded research.

Oh and also sometimes scientists just lie for the hell of it.

Now if Skeptics simply held to trusting long established science, this might not be much of a problem, but they in fact make a point of keeping abreast of the most recent scientific knowledge, as a matter of intellectual pride, haplessly absorbing it as tasty morsels of truth despite the fact that many of these 'truths' are latter overturned. Now they quickly recant as soon as the "scientific community" (I say that knowing that really there is no such thing, but that's another topic) corrects itself but what they do not realize is that all the while they are complete parrots of and true believing disciples for the "scientific community." What they have neglected to realize is that if you give a foreign authority the ability to modify your premises at will, then your ability to critically think doesn't matter, as they can define the premises in order to dictate what your conclusions will be.

Here watch this video to demonstrate an example:


Now this whole thing is one big straw man argument based on an argument from authority. I'm all for gay rights (I support gay marriage,) but to pretend that we have any idea what causes homosexuality just because we have found some correlations is ridiculous. There is also a correlation between homosexuality and being molested as a child. Why isn't that in this video? Human sexuality is caused by a variety of factors, and we don't understand it very much at all. This is the kind of misrepresentation of facts under the mantel of 'science' that Skeptics are predisposed to be fooled by. It's just trading prophets in white robes for ones in white lab coats. The Skeptical Movement is just one more group thought echo chamber. But like all such groups, they think that they are the only ones who are truly enlightened.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...the 'New' Atheism (which is inherently... well atheistic, while Skepticism is gnostic-agnostic.)...

I'm fairly sure you've misrepresented both 'New' Atheism and Scepticism there.

...scientists lie...

That's why we have peer review.

...we call them sociologists, psychologists, and economists...

Who calls people in these fields 'scientists', besides themselves?

... Generally if someone is in one of the "gray sciences" (grey sciences if you're American) then they're not really a scientists as there's absolutely no causality in any of those 'sciences,' it's all just correlation...

If it's not science then we can ignore it. You can't do a criticism of science by saying "some scientists aren't scientists" that makes no sense.
By the way, I've never encountered the term gray/grey science before. If you're still on about economists, sociologists e.t.c then, on this side of the Atlantic at least, they call themselves the "social sciences". Although as I said before, I wouldn't call them sciences at all - I call them "humanities" subjects.

...Here's another thing, who's paying for the science? You want politically 'right' leaning science? Find some business funded research. Want some politically 'left' leaning science? Try government funded research...

Firstly a semantic point, science cannot be 'left' or 'right' leaning. A scientist may have political leanings, and certain results in certain studies may or may not be preferred by different people depending on political agendas, but science itself is the name of the process. It has no leaning.

Secondly, again science is there to correct for these biases. Say for example that scientists working for an oil company distort the results of some study in order to play down the effects of CO2 on the climate, they've still got to make the details of their study available to the wider scientific community. If other teams of scientists can't replicate their results using the same methods under the same conditions then the study's going to be ignored.

And thirdly, government funded research is always left leaning? WTF?

...Oh and also sometimes scientists just lie for the hell of it....

Firstly, I don't believe this guy lied 'just for the hell of it', he probably had a reason, whether it was for personal fame, or in response to pressure for results it's had to say.
But secondly, this isn't a story of science failing. It was a story of a scientist failing, but the key part of the article to me was this,

...Earlier today, a panel of experts at the university said Prof Hwang had faked results of at least nine of 11 stem cell lines he claimed to have created in the May paper...

Yes a scientist lied, but other scientists uncovered the lie. The true story here is "the system works".

[floppit]

If it's not science then we can ignore it. You can't do a criticism of science by saying "some scientists aren't scientists" that makes no sense.
By the way, I've never encountered the term gray/grey science before. If you're still on about economists, sociologists e.t.c then, on this side of the Atlantic at least, they call themselves the "social sciences". Although as I said before, I wouldn't call them sciences at all - I call them "humanities" subjects.

This attitude, if I've understood correctly, is pants! I'm a materialist, I believe that theories should have clear ties to the real world which can be observed. Human beings are complex, but so what? So are a great many things that are subject to scientific method. The methods used to study people do OFTEN fall well below par - but again so what? All enquiry has to begin somewhere and most does so with a large degree of clumsiness. I get the point TOTALLY to be critical of design that is crap, I get being annoyed at schools of thought which draw big generalisations from one or two individual's perceptions (why I'm also very critical of Richard Dawkin's sociology) but there's absolutely no reason to ignore all study of human behaviour. People and people's lives leave evidence, hard physical evidence, from the rubbish discarded to the age we reproduce and die, we can measure were people live, what jobs they do, how long they study, whether they take their own life or get convicted of crimes. More importantly any civilisation where the state plays any kind of caring role has limited choice, either it will attempt to discover what is or isn't effective by measurement or just follow opinion, such as religious opinion, or that of scientists who have branched off into sociology without regard for evidence. As I want a secular society I'm always going to be on the side of attempting material enquiry, not navel gazing (note I spelt it correctly!) but the kind that looks for the material, actual reality of lives being lived. We (humans) are loud, bold, dominant, consumerists - hardly the fecking snow leopard of the natural world, it's not that challenging to observe people.

If you argue that one may as well ignore any study of human behaviour (I note you clearly lump it all together as non science and clearly suggest it may therefore be ignored) then by what means would we improve upon basing laws, schools, and social policy on religion? It's all well and good to campaign for secularisation but doing so requires that we step up to the plate and instead of dismissing swathes of research we actually get stuck in to sort wheat from chaff!

[Thinking Aloud]

I don't think he's saying that social sciences or their research is worthless and should be discarded. I think he's suggesting it's not Science in the strongest sense of the word.

Not being an expert in either, I'm having difficulty trying to describe how I see the difference, but to me, scientific enquiry involves repeatable testing of a hypothesis to establish its veracity - given x and y, the outcome will be z. Study of human behaviour (etc) is not repeatable in the same way and can't be used, for instance, to accurately predict the outcome of events - therefore it's not scientific in that sense. That's not to say it's useless or invalid - it provides statistics and trends which can be analysed and used for many useful purposes.

I think that's the distinction being described here.

[JimC]

I've never witnessed any inexplicable phenomenon at all. No ghost sightings, no shadowy figures, no weird noises, vibrations or anything. Zilch, nada, absolute zero.

Lying at night in the Australian desert many years ago in my sleeping bag, staring at the stars, I saw several bright, moving lights in the clear night sky, which changed direction by 90 degrees, several times, without altering their considerable speed...

I have no explanation...

[charlou]

I've never witnessed any inexplicable phenomenon at all. No ghost sightings, no shadowy figures, no weird noises, vibrations or anything. Zilch, nada, absolute zero.

Lying at night in the Australian desert many years ago in my sleeping bag, staring at the stars, I saw several bright, moving lights in the clear night sky, which changed direction by 90 degrees, several times, without altering their considerable speed...

I have no explanation...

... now where is that piccy of you during your stoner days ... ?


Just kidding, Jim ... I'm sure if you were under the influence at the time you'd acknowledge and consider that in your assessment of events.

[Clinton Huxley]

I've never witnessed any inexplicable phenomenon at all. No ghost sightings, no shadowy figures, no weird noises, vibrations or anything. Zilch, nada, absolute zero.

Lying at night in the Australian desert many years ago in my sleeping bag, staring at the stars, I saw several bright, moving lights in the clear night sky, which changed direction by 90 degrees, several times, without altering their considerable speed...

I have no explanation...

You could be an "alien abduction survivor". We need someone to hypnotise you, so we can get the full details.

I'm thinking these could be "floaters", somehow reflecting light off your eyeball, or something. Just guessin' though.

I want to see apparently inexplicable phenomena, damn it!

[Horwood Beer-Master]

If it's not science then we can ignore it. You can't do a criticism of science by saying "some scientists aren't scientists" that makes no sense.
By the way, I've never encountered the term gray/grey science before. If you're still on about economists, sociologists e.t.c then, on this side of the Atlantic at least, they call themselves the "social sciences". Although as I said before, I wouldn't call them sciences at all - I call them "humanities" subjects.

This attitude, if I've understood correctly, is pants! I'm a materialist, I believe that theories should have clear ties to the real world which can be observed. Human beings are complex, but so what? So are a great many things that are subject to scientific method. The methods used to study people do OFTEN fall well below par - but again so what? All enquiry has to begin somewhere and most does so with a large degree of clumsiness. I get the point TOTALLY to be critical of design that is crap, I get being annoyed at schools of thought which draw big generalisations from one or two individual's perceptions (why I'm also very critical of Richard Dawkin's sociology) but there's absolutely no reason to ignore all study of human behaviour. People and people's lives leave evidence, hard physical evidence, from the rubbish discarded to the age we reproduce and die, we can measure were people live, what jobs they do, how long they study, whether they take their own life or get convicted of crimes. More importantly any civilisation where the state plays any kind of caring role has limited choice, either it will attempt to discover what is or isn't effective by measurement or just follow opinion, such as religious opinion, or that of scientists who have branched off into sociology without regard for evidence. As I want a secular society I'm always going to be on the side of attempting material enquiry, not navel gazing (note I spelt it correctly!) but the kind that looks for the material, actual reality of lives being lived. We (humans) are loud, bold, dominant, consumerists - hardly the fecking snow leopard of the natural world, it's not that challenging to observe people.

If you argue that one may as well ignore any study of human behaviour (I note you clearly lump it all together as non science and clearly suggest it may therefore be ignored) then by what means would we improve upon basing laws, schools, and social policy on religion? It's all well and good to campaign for secularisation but doing so requires that we step up to the plate and instead of dismissing swathes of research we actually get stuck in to sort wheat from chaff!

I'm not saying the humanities have nothing to tell us. I'm just saying they are not in the business of determining the facts about the nature of reality.

Since Andrew's post essentially concerned the topic of how to decide what to believe or not regarding the nature of reality, the humanities (which he was trying to classify as 'sciences' to muddy the waters) could, for the purposes of what was being discussed, be ignored.

[Drewish]

Since Andrew's post essentially concerned the topic of how to decide what to believe or not regarding the nature of reality, the humanities (which he was trying to classify as 'sciences' to muddy the waters) could, for the purposes of what was being discussed, be ignored.

To clarify, I attempt to draw lines concerning whether scientific research or my own personal experience is a more reliable source for determining reality. When it comes to mathematics, physics and chemistry there's no contest, science wins. With biology things become a bit more subjective, but even so science does a fairly good job of things. But the further you get away from causality and become dependent on correlative trends, the more likely you are to have science identify false patterns or make erroneous claims. I am of the opinion that when it comes to sociology and economics, personal experience is presently vastly superior to the social science equivalent. I'm fairly in the air regarding psychology, as neuroscience is giving it some credibility, but historically it's a bunch of crap. And further stating that deferring to science on the social sciences is probably a bad move that the skeptics tend to make (where a skeptic is defined as people in the skeptical movement that I referenced above.)

[Clinton Huxley]

I've told this anecdote before, I think, but is still pertinent. Some years ago I attended an Open University summer school as part of a course I was doing (Biology: Brain and Behaviour). There were, broadly, 2 types of people on the course - those studying biology and those studying psychology. We conducted some experiments (something to do with nerve stimulation as I recall) and then had to plot our results on a graph. An innocuous exercise, you would think.....

However, one of the psychology camp piped up "I don't know how to draw a graph...."

This told me all I ever needed to know about psychology....

[floppit]

I've told this anecdote before, I think, but is still pertinent. Some years ago I attended an Open University summer school as part of a course I was doing (Biology: Brain and Behaviour). There were, broadly, 2 types of people on the course - those studying biology and those studying psychology. We conducted some experiments (something to do with nerve stimulation as I recall) and then had to plot our results on a graph. An innocuous exercise, you would think.....

However, one of the psychology camp piped up "I don't know how to draw a graph...."

This told me all I ever needed to know about psychology....

Surely, you would at least acknowldege this is a gross over generalisation?

On the other hand this would make a better stand alone thread.