Talk:Skepticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Spelling

Before considering spelling changes -- "sKeptic" versus "sCeptic" -- please note the spelling of the title of this article, then review and/or add to the discussion below:


[edit] Not even close to NPOV

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
    • quackery
    • false belief systems like cults and finding out that it was a scam after years of cult involvement (I am speaking from experience)
  • 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.

Andries

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, 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.)
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)

[edit] 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)

That sounds as if you mean POV, not NPOV. --Hob Gadling July 4, 2005 21:36 (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)

This section needs to be rewritten with a NPOV. Always remember that the main role of skepticism is the exercise of critical thinking, not being a mechanism to slow down progress. That is an illusory after-effect of critical thinking. That is why skepticism is given that "inertial" trait.--Phoebus 20:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Do they? Extraordinary claims require sufficient proof. If the proof is sufficient and factual, that is all that is required. Untenable, bald assertions like the above leave scientific skepticism open to justified criticism. Since it clearly lacks circumspection, perhaps scientific skepticism belongs in the class of protosciences, and should be added to the list of protosciences on Wikipedia. The fact that scientific skepticism claims to be scientific, but too often lacks scientific discretion (2005), seems very ironic. -- J. D. French, July 25, 2005.

This is a quote from Carl Sagan. Disagree with it if you will, it is indeed a quote by a famous skeptic, and makes sense to put under "quotations." Now that you mention it though, it needs attribution, I'll go do that now.hallq
The quotation actually originated with Marcello Truzzi in his early CSICOP years. It was taken up and popularized by Sagan. Truzzi supposedly was going to publish an article detailing the problems in the phrase, but this never occurred. And regarding "scientific skepticism claims to be scientific, but too often lacks scientific discretion," you're a victim of just the problem in "definition-drift" which I discuss below. Scientific skepticism is part of science, NOT part of Skeptic orgs. Your sentence could better read: "The skepticism practiced by Skeptics claims to be scientific, but too often lacks scientific discetion." In other words, the skepticism practiced by scientists generally DOES have scientific discretion, but "Skeptic" skepticism is a separate topic, so it may or may not lack discretion. --Wjbeaty 20:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed this sentence: "It seems there is no reason to take wrong skeptics as a kind of skeptics because they miss the indispensable objectiveness, without which their jugdements turn to be just a matter of faith." It seems poorly written. Also, whether a skeptic is a 'wrong skeptic' or not is in the eye of the beholder. August 6, 2005.

The same could be labelled to the previous lines regarding "good" skeptics. I have changed it but good english is not required to contribute. Please correct mine while keeping the content if the problem is not really on the matter. Lacerda 05:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I see that someone has already changed this section for the better. To accomodate your concerns I added this: "Some individuals or even groups could endorse or adopt scientific skepticism, but be biased as such, lacking the indispensable objectiveness and restraint that the word 'scientific' implies. Thus in a context implying 'scientific,' we need not accept the term 'skeptic' from anyone at face value." JDF, August 7, 2005

[edit] Definition of "belief" as applied to skepticism

Misconstruing the meaning of "belief" is at the core of the on-going tug-of-war over content here. Wikipedia has a fine definition of belief, and we should agree to abide by its very reasonable content.

There is otherwise a glaring lack of clear thinking here regarding what a "belief" (or ethereal [1] "lack of belief") is. Also, see Merriam-Webster's definition of "belief" [2]. It is otherwise 'dancing on air' to not ground this discussion in commonly accepted definitions of words.--66.69.219.9 01:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Skepticism is a philosophic position - that knowledge is not achieved & doubt is the best position. Some skeptics believe in god & some do not. To say skepticism is a belief system is to fly in the face of the meaning of the word to put forth a POV agenda. --Looking at the definition of belief as you have suggested (but apparently pointlessly), to what proposition do you claim Skeptics assent? I'd say the vandalism is yours. --JimWae 01:12, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
  • Any 'philosophic position' is a belief system. This is simply based upon globally accepted definitions. What is it about the common word "belief" that has you so wrapped around the axle? It's merely a word; you're reading too much into it, and clearly in a counter-rational fashion. I'm going by Wikipedia's and Merriam-Webster on this point. What are you invoking? Or does that require another "lack of belief"-like discussion? Stop changing content without NPOV. Fair warning. --66.69.219.9 01:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I ask again, "to what proposition do you claim Skeptics, agnostics, or even atheists assent?"--JimWae 01:20, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
  • Apparently, "Skeptics, agnostics or even atheists" are assenting to the not terribly intelligent proposition that words such as "belief" cannot be used even if they are well-defined. --66.69.219.9 01:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I ask again, "to what proposition do you claim Skeptics, agnostics, or even atheists assent?" It was you who said to look at the definition of belief. Were you just bluffing?--JimWae 01:27, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
  • Look, you need to get off of your self-justifying circular logic. I have responded to you quite directly. I think that Wikipedia editors will go with the dictionary. What are you proposing? --66.69.219.9 01:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • According to the article you pointed to, belief is "assent to a proposition", a "propositional attitude". I ask again that you specify the proposition -- and quit wiht the ad hominems--JimWae 01:35, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

[edit] A few edits, and structure

1)I tweaked the "Debunkers" section to make it less POV, by deleting some material and rewording the first and last senteces of paragraph one. I'm not really satisfied with the later sentence, but I think it's an improvement. I also added Hume and Sextus Empiricus to the "famous skeptics" so that philosophical skeptics would be represented.

2)The "Skeptics and cynics" section should probably be deleted, though I want to see what other people think before taking such drastic action. Saying there's a confusion implies a technical definition, but "cynic" is used her colloquially, not in the sense of the ancient Greek philosophers. Without out accepted technical definitions to go by, it can only be pure POV.

3)Suggestion for organization: keep it to three short sections: intro, philosophical, scientific. Include links to main articles. If anything doesn't fit into those sections, move it to a larger article. Alternatively, make this the page for philosophical skepticism with a link at top to scientific skepticism, or make it a disambiguation page.


I think your idea of a replacing this article with a disambiguation page is the correct one. This page seems to be redundant with the scientific and philosophical page in terms of content and a mess in terms of presentation and POV. Moreover, I don't think that the subject is a sufficiently unified entity to merit a single page. Reciprocal links on the scientific and philosophical pages seem like the better solution. Blowfish 22:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject

Shouldn't skeptics have their own wikiproject? I've found that it's often hard to make an article NPOV, because New Age Spiritualists and other irrationalists want to keep articles POV. It would be much easier cleaning up wikipedia if we skeptics organized. --Maprovonsha172 21:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There's this new project Wikipedia:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism for rational/scientific skepticism. Bubba73 (talk), 22:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and Maprovonsha172 was the creator.....;-) Good project. Any other skeptics here should join. -- Fyslee 22:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I didn't realize that the shortened version of the name (listed there) is the same person. Bubba73 (talk), 00:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skepticism as inertia

Does anyone want to rewrite this section or should it just be removed? Maprovonsha172 00:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed that section needs to be rewriten. --Phoebus 20:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I edited it, however, I'm not sure on the proper way to footnote articles from a magazine. Here's the reference for "most scientific papers are wrong": http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915 --Tbannist 16:22, 30 September 2005 (EST)

Ok, could someone take a look a the new improved article and remove the NPOV if it looks good now? Since I did a lot of editing on this, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do it. --User:Tbannist:Tbannist 17:54, 12 October 2005 (EST)

Can anyone supply evidence to back these assertions about the Wright brothers? I've not encountered this current story, and suspect it's a complete myth: "However the Wright Brothers were intentionally keeping their inventions secret until they could achieve fully controlled flight, mostly to keep their competitors from appropriating their inventions." In fact the Wrights were not secretive and instead spent nearly a year flying in public while inviting the press and the military to demonstrations, flying in an open field outside of Dayton, Ohio near a well-used railroad line (the famous Huffman Prarie.) They didn't keep their device secret from the press: after an initial demonstration where engine problems prevented any flights, the local press refused to attend. The local Dayton newspaper refused to observe their over 100 flights, even while innundated with letters of complaint from the general public attending the demonstrations. The Scientific American refused to attend, insisting that American reporters go to great lengths for stories, therefore if the flights were really occurring, it would be in all the newspapers. After a year of publicity efforts the Wrights took their flyer to Paris, where it caused an overnight worldwide sensation and led to major aircraft development by Britain, Germany, and France, while the USA lagged behind. So... if nobody can give evidence for the current "extraordinary claims" about the Wrights' secrecy, I will change this to an example which illustrates the very opposite: instances where skepticism derails progress. (Also, the wright brothers entry supports this idea of the Wright's possibly-mythical secrecy.) --Wjbeaty 19:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Skepticism vs the philosophy of non-scientist skeptics

Big problem: scientific skepticism is about science, and is heavily intertwined with Scientific Method (or Methods of Science) ...and does not necessarly have much to do with philosophy of activist individuals or groups. The term "skepticism" becomes muddled if it refers to the correct behavior of a practicing scientist, yet non-scientists adopt it to describe the behavior of those who make it their business to attack "extraordiary claims" and pop-culture irrationality such as UFOs, bigfoot, religious claims, etc. These are two separate topics.

Scientists in general do not attack extraordinary claims. That's not what scientific skepticism is about. In particular, the phrase regarding "extraordinary claims" is a major part of the literature of skeptical organizations. It was coined by Marcello Truzzi of CSICOP, and popularized by Carl Sagan in his Skeptic work, while most scientists have never heard of it. The phrase is not part of scientific skepticism. I'd argue that the phrase is the very opposite of science: it's hopelessly biased, since every new claim requires solid evidence and replication in order to be accepted, while labeling "extraordinary" claims and "extraordinary" evidence is an emotional decision and resembles a political gambit.

Practicing scientists employ scientific skepticism, while the activists who take on public irrationality mostly avoid a major part "of scientific skepticism: the methods of science intended to fight our own bias, such as Feynman's requirement of extreme honesty, or the important requirement of brutal self-criticism: constantly questioning one's own beliefs, assumptions, and hypotheses, while taking the attacks of critics very seriously. Obviously there is overlap: a small percentage of scientists are activists, while a percentage of activists do use properly honest and self-critical scientific skepticism. Regardless of the overlap, the "skepticsm" of non-scientist organizations is quite different from the "skepticism" on which modern science is based. These are therefore two entirely separate types of Skepticism, and to combine them smacks strongly of pseudoscience: a move by the Skeptic Community to equate their own methods and issues with scientific skepticism of the professional science community.--Wjbeaty 19:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about as I and others do in fact do what you claim that we do not (take the criticism of others seriously, try to fight our own biases, questioning our own beliefs and assumptions, etc). Its why I'm so filled with doubt about everything.

Second, the "Extraordinary" claims statement is a part of science. If someone is proposing a new theory, (Darwin proposing evolution for example) then he's better got some damned good evidence for this claim, since its extraordinary. Scientific theories have and meet this challenge everyday. Other claims, which are just as (or more) extraordinary, which propose new forces or so forth haven't met this challenge.

So its not just emotional. If the new claim requires a complete rework of all of physics, or major changes to established fact, or is just something completely new and unknown, then its extraordinary. It doesn't matter if the claim is regarding ESP, the atomic theory of matter, gamma rays or astrology. --Havermayer 04:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues with Skeptics and cynics and Debunkers sections

The following sentences seem to me to have NPOV issues:

While such critics may occasionally be correct, frequently the accusations are simply attempts by pseudoscientists, paranormalists, and spiritualists to discredit their own critics without having to provide evidence to prove their claims.

This seems to make assumptions about the motivations of most of the critics critics who make accusations of closemindness. While it's reasobable to assume some pseudoscientists, paranormalists, and spiritualists are indeed simply trying to avoid having to prove their claims, the assumption that most make such claims for this reason is simply assumption. Many of these critics may actually trully believe that most skeptics are unreasonably closed minded. Since I doubt false critics of skeptics would readily admit their criticism is really just a cover how can we trully know the motivations behind the critics? If you change the begining of sentance to something to the effect of "Many skeptics counter that while such critics may occasionally be correct, they believe that frequently the accusations are simply attempts by..." is more NPOV.

Many debunkers become controversial figures because they are usually intelligent, opinionated, and vocal about their disbelief."

How do we know the debunkers "intelligence" is a key factor in them being controversal? Is the intelligence reference really about their percieved intelligence by the genersl public as part of what makes them controversial?

The debunkers section also should include the common claim by critics that many skeptics seem to often at least imply that lack of evidence is evidence of abscence and thus are using an "argument from ignorance" type of fallacy. --Cab88 18:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... but absence of evidence is evidence of absence if one would expect evidence. (Please note that evidence is not the same as proof.) So, this claim of critics should be worded as an accusation without either implying that the accusation is true, or that it would really imply such a fallacy if true. Difficult... --Hob Gadling 18:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
First, scientific knowledge is provisional, subject to change. It my be 99.999% certain, but it is not absolutely certain. So you have to come to a provisional conclusion, based on what is known, which is subject to change later.
Secondly, about "lack of evidence". Suppose the claim is made that some baseball pitchers can pitch 200 MPH (about 320km/hr). Suppose you take the 100 best pitchers in professional baseball and see how fast they can pitch. Say the results are 99, 101, 94, 91, 100, etc. and 102 is the top. There is a lack of evidence that anyone can pitch 200 mph. Does that absolutely prove that no one can pitch 200 mph? No it doesn't. But what (tentative) scientific conclusion would you make? Some people would sit on the fence and say it is 50%-50%. But actually based on the evidence, it is extremely unlikely that anyone can pitch 200 mph. The reasonable conclusion would be to tentatively assume that no one can pitch 200mph. If later someone is found that can pitch 200 mph, that tentative assumption will be proved false. This is the scientific method at work, and it employs the notion of falsifiability. The statement that no one can pitch 200 mph is falsifiable (by any one person that can). The opposite statement is not falsifiable, so it isn't a scientific statement.
The case of psychics, dowsers, etc. is similar. Dozens and dozens of tests of the "best" have been done and none of them have been able to demonstrate what they claim. The reasonable conclusion is that it is very unlikely that the claims are true, and it is best to assume that the claims are not true - subject to change if only one can legitimately demonstrate the claim. Bubba73 (talk), 21:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I know all that. (That's why I wrote "Please note that evidence is not the same as proof." I thought this would prevent people from writing answers containing sentences like "Does that absolutely prove that no one can pitch 200 mph?") I don't think there is a disagreement between us two about this. --Hob Gadling 22:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I was agreeing with you, and supporting your comments. (The message wasn't intended for just you.) Bubba73 (talk), 16:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling and the manual of style

This article is titled with one spelling and uses it in the opening paragraph then switches. The Manual of Style says that articles should use one spelling or the other with the exception proper names which should use the offical name. I would just change the article but wanted to make sure I was not walking into a contentious issues thathas already been fought over. Dalf | Talk 23:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A month or two ago someone changed all of the "sk..." to "sc..." . I agree with changing them all back to "sk...". Bubba73 (talk), 00:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Offical policy supports changing them back I was just checking to see if there was some sort of special circumstance here. One of the funniest (And saddest) examples on WP:LAME involves commonwealth vs. American spelling (but it was really entertainning to read). I'll change them later with a search adn replace if no one comes up with a reason sutable to generate and exception to the policy. Dalf | Talk 01:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


You have my full support. I have collected a number of reasons, including Wikipedia policies, for reverting back to the original spelling, but I'm at work now and they are at home....;-) Back when the changes were made it amounted to vandalism of the existing article. Both spellings are correct, but the style should be preserved consistently throughout and the original author's work should also be respected. Go for it! -- Fyslee 12:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Did it last night. Though that was one spelling diffrence I was not aware of before. I think it might just be the strangest diffrence between the two systems, I am not sure I would have even figured out what it was out of context (I keep wanting to read septic). Dalf | Talk 18:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Well done! Here is what I was referring to above. It was here at Wikipedia all along, and I wrote it here, on Jan. 14, to this user - 82.69.78.181

Spelling

Your editing here is rather untimely, heavy handed, and improper:

Skepticism with "k" is by far the most common spelling. Do a Google search. Wikipedia isn't the place to carry on spelling wars. -- Fyslee 01:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

More on the subject

Both methods of spelling are correct, but since the original article was consistently spelled with "k", it was an inappropriate edition to change it. If it had been an obvious UK article, or had originally been written with a "c", it would be a different matter.

Place yourself in the shoes of the author. If you had written the article, how would you feel if some American came along and changed the whole thing in the way you have done?

Here are some relevant excerpts from Wikipedia policy: National varieties of English:

  • Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes).
  • Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country.
  • If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please don't be too quick to make accusations!)

END of message to that user.

I hope what we've written here can be used in the future whenever someone tries to revert the spelling, because sooner or later, someone will likely do so. -- Fyslee 21:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


I have now added a link to this section at the top. -- Fyslee 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Truzzi quote

The following quote deserves a place in the article. It is in the public domain and no paraphrase or abbreviation can do it justice:

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. -- On Pseudo-Skepticism, A Commentary by Marcello Truzzi, Zetetic Scholar,#12-13, 1987

-- Fyslee 05:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It could go at Marcello Truzzi and have a link to it. I think it would be better there, because that article is small and this one is large. Bubba73 (talk), 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I can see it being a good addition to the Truzzi article itself, but - and this is just my opinion - it is a (if not the) penultimate summation of skeptical principles. One has the whole thing summed up in a nutshell. Therefore I believe it deserves a prominent place in this article, sort of as a skeptic's "Declaration of Principles," or something like that. Maybe you can describe it better. It is - at the least - a very valuable and widely quoted citation, and therefore deserves a place here, IMHO. -- Fyslee 17:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree slightly. Truzzi considered himself a "true skeptic" and that the vast majority of scientific skeptics/rational skeptics were not "true skeptics" like him. He is using the no true Scotsman false arguement. Very few, if any, scientific skeptics believe they have proven a negative hypothesis. Truzzi wanted to sit on the fence. Bubba73 (talk), 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Philosophical skepticism

This article and Philosophical skepticism are duplicates. Is anyone opposed to merging them? Since there is already a Scientific skepticism article, I propose the new, merged article be located at Philosophical skepticism. The Rod 16:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think they should not be merged. Phil. skepticism and scientific skepticism are both forms of skepticism, but they are entirely different from each other. Bubba73 (talk), 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


It seems Bubba73 misunderstood. Skepticism deals with Philosophical skepticism, this makes two articles for one subject. They should of course be merged, and to this skepticism page, as skepticism is first and all a philosophical school. Scientific skepticism is treated in another, separate, entry. However, it is a bit extreme in saying that scientific and philosophical scepticism have nothing to do. Scientific skepticism is by definition an offshoot of (philosophical) scepticism - but i agree that they should be separate. I'm also creating a Scepticism category, as it didn't yet existed and is essential in understanding of philosophy. By the way, if anybody wanted to help with the objectivity page, it would also be welcome. Lapaz


I'd agree with a partial merge. Any philosophical content, except a small paragraph, should be moved to philosophical skepticism. Skepticism should be used to explain the term's use in contemporary society, which is a different beast entirely. -Seth Mahoney 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
How about the following pages?
  • "Skepticism (disambiguation)"
  • "Skepticism (philosophy)" for the merge of the content currently on "Skepticism" with the content from "Philosophical skepticism"
  • "Scientific skepticism"
  • and possibly "Skepticism" for the term's use in contemporary society
Does that sound right? The Rod 20:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


I'd say that making skepticism the disambig, moving much of the content here to scientific skepticism, and then moving any appropriate content to skepticism (philosophy) would be simpler, since in contemporary usage skepticism pretty much means scientific skepticism. -Seth Mahoney 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Where does Pathological skepticism fit in? I can see that the general Skepticism and phil. skepticism may need to be merged if skepticism = philisophical skepticism. Bubba73 (talk), 21:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Occam's Picture

I agree that Occam's Razor is related to skepticism, but is the picture of Occam at the top of the page really necessary? There's not even any mention of him in the article. Chrismith 23:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the picture serves no purpose.--Rejnal 23:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Ockham is mentioned (cf. Runes) in connection with 14th Century scepticism, but Ockhamism is a distinct perspective, and the picture already ockurs at Occam's razor, so I think that it multiplies effigies beyond necessity to feature it on the marquee here. Jon Awbrey 15:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: You see a picture of Ockham, you think Nominalism. The more I look at, the more I realize how absurd it is that some neo-reductionists have lately adopted this poor Franciscan friar, not especially known for any particular brand of heresy, as a part of their popular hagiography. If an icon be called for, let it be Sextus Empiricus, but that eternal worthy is already numismatized in a niche of his own, so maybe it's best to let him rest there. Per the above, I'll delete the picture of Ockham. Jon Awbrey 16:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Type I error

I am not that familiar nor certain about to edit the article itself, but what about this

Does skepticism imply a higher chance of a Type I error? (statistically, the probability of rejecting a null hypothesis when it's true; the null hypothesis is usually the status quo, i.e. alpha) and thus a lower probability of beta?

In this respect, the New Scientist article (most scientific papers are probably wrong) might be correct (assuming that scientists are skepticists), as in most research it is attempted to minimize the alpha values of hypotheses.

Maybe I'm just wrong :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.120.121.123 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-23 11:36:58 (UTC)

No, skepticism implies a lower chance of a Type I error. Skeptics do not want to take something that is false as being true (which is a type I error). Bubba73 (talk), 21:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

JA: Just by way of clarifying the citation request, here is the sentence on which it was originally placed:

In modern usage ([citation needed]), the term also commonly refers to empirical skepticism, sometimes subcategorized as scientific skepticism, demand for proof of scientific claims, and religious skepticism, demand for proof of faith-based claims.

JA: The citation subsequently supplied is evidently this gloss on the term "skeptic":

Skeptic, 1587, "member of an ancient Gk. school that doubted the possibility of real knowledge," from Fr. sceptique, from L. scepticus, from Gk. skeptikos (pl. Skeptikoi "the Skeptics"), lit. "inquiring, reflective," the name taken by the disciples of the Gk. philosopher Pyrrho (c.360-c.270 B.C.E.), from skeptesthai "to reflect, look, view" (see scope (1)). The extended sense of "one with a doubting attitude" first recorded 1615. The sk- spelling is an early 17c. Gk. revival and is preferred in U.S. "Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found." [Miguel de Unamuno, "Essays and Soliloquies," 1924] Eprint.

JA: Leaving aside for the moment the question of web-based sources under WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY, that citation addresses only the matter of the previous sentence, not the matter in question, which is the assertion that the term skepticism "commonly refers to empirical skepticism, sometimes subcategorized as scientific skepticism, demand for proof of scientific claims, and religious skepticism, demand for proof of faith-based claims". An authorative citation for that claim about usage is what is needed in this case. Jon Awbrey 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence itself should be rewritten in a way that's more inline with available sources. The evidence for "skepticism" being widely applyied to "empirical skepticism" can be seen with a web search or a review of the sites and organizations which rally around this cause (Skeptic's Dictionary, Skeptical Enquirer, etc), but I've been unable to find a source that explicitly claims this, so this might fall under "original research." I am the one who originally added the sentence, so someone else should probably reword it. --Izau 21:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

JA: Liddell & Scott give skeptomai as the root or primitive form of this whole lexical complex, so I went back to the root. From that root it quite naturally leads to all the other connotations of perception, speculation, and circumspection. Jon Awbrey 14:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's a Dictionary, and What'sn't a Dictionary

JA: Lemme splain about dictionaries. Dictionaries are written by lexicographers, the "true" or "genuine" among which are authorities and experts on the usage of words, which authority they garner and which expertise they acquire through disciplined procedures for collecting and collating data about word usage from designated populations of word users. What they document are the empirical facts that the words of their entries are actually used in the contexts and in the connections with other words that are prevalent in that population of users. Contemporary lexicographers no longer see their role as one of prescribing usage, though they do pass on information about usage that sensible folk know is morally equivalent to a prescription by the community. Far less then do they prescribe particular points of view or particular theories about the corresponding concepts, but they simply record the various and sundry connections of words, in which some may of course find "folk", "implicit", or "tacit" theories of those concepts. But the true lexicographer, per se, has no truck with all that. Jon Awbrey 20:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to take out a bit too much yesterday along with the obvious POVs. I want to assert that a better definition is in order for this article. Will find one or two that are a bit more informative than referencing a term like "true knowledge" which is a definite POV magnet. Gotta go. Later...Kenosis 20:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert problems

JA: JackLumber, Are you trying to delete that spelling note, or add it? From here it looks like you keep adding it. Jon Awbrey 22:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

? What are you talking about? I was just trying to erase the note and replace it with a link to the "spelling differences" page. The article now is looking (to me) the way I intended. Can it be that you have a different "view" of the page at the same moment?--JackLumber 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone?

Thank you for these new paragraphs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, they do not seem to have a formal tone to blend in with the rest of the article. Do you mind if I move them here while you and other editors take a look at sharpening up the wording?

Recently many competent scientists have cast a long overdue skeptical eye not on the timeworn efforts to debunk occult claims, but on the chronic past and current bogus or falsified research/ claims by other certified scientists re perpetual motion machines, cold fusion, cloning, falsified trials re efficacy of synthetic drugs and organic substances developed for human consumption, ethical irregularities re human artificial insemination and other ongoing breaches of public trust and/or fraudulent claims for purposes of self-aggrandizement, tenure, advancement, and financial reward.
The Vatican does its own skeptical research about 'miraculous' events, charging after investigation that such and such even was supernatural, or was not, or that it cannot be determined. In any event, the latter two outcomes, deflate the miraculous claim, and most 'miraculous events' are found to be either not supernatural or unknown. More recently, in a cultural shift, some religious skeptics also not only question concepts, but question the promulgations of individual high profile ministers, priests, rabbis, and other religious who claim they have received direct messages from God that purportedly make a Divine demand for political, financial or otherwise worldly response on a grandiose scale.

Sources are particularly welcome. You could propose improvements below. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe this should just be a disambiguation page?

Perhaps the "skepticism" page should just be a disambiguation page that points to the various different types of skepticism? As it is right now, its really just a glorified version of a disambiguation page anyways. Is this suggestion good? --Havermayer 03:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that this is a good idea (making skepticism a disambiguation link) and would really like the imput of other wikipedians before I move ahead and do it. --Havermayer 21:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Not a bad idea - but you do need to keep the "ordinary usage" stuff at the top of the article. I can't be just a disambig page, it must have a bit more in the way of general discussion - ordinary meaning, perhaps etymology, certainly spelling (sce- vs. ske-), maybe a comment on shifting meanings through the centuries - before offering a choice of different kinds of "skepticism". Snalwibma 07:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it should read like a dictionary, but it should be an overview of skepticism through the ages. The word skepticism is not ambiguous, so it doesn't need to be disambiguated: there are just several types of skepticism, as there are several types of Christianity. With a little cleanup, it could be a good example of Wikipedia:Summary style. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested External Link

Please consider a link to...

...as an anecdotal exploration of dysfunctional skepticism.Paul Niquette 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse me (a new wikipedian) for puting this suggestion in the wrong place. I shall be pleased to receive guidance for putting it in the right place. Paul Niquette 00:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/k/e/Talk%7ESkepticism_9cad.html"