Talk:Scientific skepticism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

POV?

The main quote is so POV that I am going to replace it with a NPOV paraphrase. When I get up from my nap. :-) Dbabbitt 02:00, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

User Lord Kenneth has reverted the article to its extreme POV state. The topic certainly deserves an article, but as with any Wikipedia article, all significant points of view should be reflected. Ken states that "science is not democratic", which is true enough. But neither is science exclusively defined by the CSICOP gang, and having in the article only links to the CSICOP propaganda is not NPOV. There are many who hold the opinion that the CSICOP gang, contrary to their ostensible charter, are anything but open-minded and scientific in their investigations, assuming they make any real investigations at all of those subjects they fight against. In other words, there is a difference between scientific skepticism described as an objective ideal and putative "scientific skepticism" as embodied in the behavior of the CSICOP leadership and their ilk, and the article should reflect that. That means we should include links to materials that provide alternative views of skepticism. Give these different headings if you like, but let's get a little more NPOV here. Grizzly 07:49, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Significant" points of view? Why, let's give links in the Earth section to the flat earthers! The fact of the matter is that you are linking to pseudoscientists who are not credible, dishonest, and unscientific. As the title says "scientific skepticism", it should not be anything else. If you wish to discuss pseudoscience or parapsychology you are invited to edit the proper article as you wish. Your hatred of CSICOP and anything that denies your "pseudoscience" (psi, astrology, esp, whatever...) shows how POV you are and how unable you are to write a fair, biased article. - Lord Kenneth 18:37, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
Good point! I've added a link to the flat earthers on earth now. O:-) Kim Bruning 10:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the current version is POV. The article should state that the list of proven mistakes by skeptics is small when compared to the list of proven mistakes by people who don't follow Scientific skepticism. - Andries 20:20, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree. However, it's not unreasonable to point out that "small" is not the same as "none", and explain why mistakes happen and how they're dealt with. IMO there's no shame in admitting that science makes mistakes, since the scientific method is designed to account for and eventually correct such mistakes. Bryan 01:42, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That would be obscenely biased to say the "mistakes by skepticss are small, while the mistakes by others are large". I hope you simply didn't think it thru. Jack 02:47, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Jack that it sounds biased to say that the list of proven mistakes by skeptics is small but it is the truth. E.g. astrology has been proven to have no empirical basis but is still very popular. The list of pseudosciences (e.g. iriodolgy, homeopathy, tarot), fallen gurus, cults, perpeteum mobiles that stopped moving, psychic frauds is a long, long list. Andries 10:20, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

outlets?

I don't care if people don't like science, or mistrust it. Science is our knowledge. Wikipedia is not an outlet for pseudoscientists, mystics, or other assorted loonies in peddling their crap. To critisize knowledge is to throw your brain out the window. Those who criticize scientific skeptics are credulous, unscientific wackos. If there is legitimate critisism about a PARTICULAR skeptic, please post it on that page. Reddi, you talk about "rhetorical fallacies" when that paragraph covers all skeptics! Ridiculous! Don't tell me your article was NPOV, putting "scientific" in italics is certainly commentary on your part. I know science and skeptics is a touchy subject, especially to the religious.... but too bad. - Lord Kenneth 03:42, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

"people don't like science, or mistrust it"? I love science if checked and verfied ... that's all ....
"Science is our knowledge"? very good ... it is really emprical knowledge (IIRC) ...
"not an outlet for pseudoscientists, mystics, or other assorted loonies in peddling their crap"? seems like your POV ... why don't you stop attacking and critically check a person's arguement (as in logic) and not thier blanket statements ...
"To critisize knowledge is to throw your brain out the window"? Umm no ... to verify facts is to think critically (and make the corresponding experiments), not expouse various bias without backing up the statements nor accept any off-hand statement by vague "skeptic" ... that is the way to facts, not dogma.
... to ...criticize scientific skeptics are credulous, unscientific wackos"? Some are and some are not ... some make careful examination of the arguements (and associated facts) from the skeptic, for the individual under scrutiny, and make your own decision ...
and yes there [probably]] are legitimate critisism about [some] skeptics, and what I posted is valid critques of general scientific skeptics (and associated psuedoskeptics)...
"rhetorical fallacies" [...] covers all skeptics? yep ... exactly ... as many are psuedoskeptics, few are skeptics in the critical sense (and the ones on the list are a good start for being "real")...
[snip excliamation] ...
The article was more NPOV than it exists now ... btw, I'm rv it ...
Your over euthisastic protests is certainly a commentary on your part.
Science and skeptics [..] touchy subject? I didn't think so ... but appearantly it is [especially to you] ...
"especially to the religious" Really religion and science are different things .... one relies on FACT and DEMONSTRATIONS ... while the other is based in FAITH ... I hope you can tell the difference? I could help you .....
"but too bad? can I quote you on that?


Sincerely, JDR

Of course, you're all for science until you find out it doesn't support your sacred cows. The statements added in are unverified, out of place, and obviously POV. I'm reverting it back. If you wish your changes to stay, request an admin to mediate this. - Lord Kenneth 00:42, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

"all for science until you find out it doesn't support your sacred cows"? ummm no ... you can try to assail me personally, but the points I bring up aren't reduced because of that ... (and this is typical of "skeptics", attack the person and not the points) ...
"statements added in are unverified"? Which ones exactly, or is it just the overall "general" thing (pretty non-specific ... another common trait of certian "skeptics" arguement) ...
"out of place"? IYNSHO ...
"obviously POV"? The article has a POV ... as of now it's pro-skeptic ...
"reverting it back? I've posted a NPOV and accuracy dispute ... no need for a rv war ...
"request an admin to mediate this"? ... the header warnings are a good start ... mediation may be a next step (if a postion to acknowledge a counterpoint is impossible here) ...
Btw, the article needs to address the difference between pseudo-skeptics and real skeptics, for NPOV and completeness.
So do you deny that pseudo-skeptics exist?
Sincerely, JDR

Your type of "NPOV" reeks of Fox New's "fair and balanced". It's not. Just because the page doesn't talk about how people who think they have psychic powers dislike James Randi or whoever doesn't mean it's unbiased. If this page needs mention of "pseudo-skeptics" then we need "pseudo-historians", "pseudo-philosophers", etc. It's also interesting how you make the very fallacy you asserted skeptics make... - Lord Kenneth 18:18, Jan 24, 2004 (PST)

[snip "fair and balanced" red herring] um ... that is not the question ...
"It's not? iynsho ...
"the page doesn't talk about how people who think" have "psychic powers"? nope ... not the article to talk about it ...
"dislike James Randi" ... he's ok ... though sagan was better [IMO]
"or whoever" ... the "who" is all important ... Randi may be better than others ... but to accept his word just because he is a "famous" skeptic isn't being skeptical, nor logical ...
[not acknowledging pseudoskeptic] doesn't mean it's unbiased? umm ... yes it does ...
"needs mention" of this that and the kitchen sink? umm no ...
"make the very fallacy you asserted skeptics make" ... sure ... must make me a skeptic [bah] =-\ ....
JDR

It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You don't even understand the fallacies you are accusing me of making. Why don't you get an admin to weigh in before making these POV changes? Are you even sane? - Lord Kenneth 22:39, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

"'obvious you have no idea what you are talking about ... what? sure, another personal attack ... you do realize that does NOTHING for your points ...
"You don't even understand the fallacies you are accusing me of making"? sure ... whatever ...
"get an admin to weigh in"? well ... considering that you removed the NPOV and Accuracy dispute tags, that's kinda haed to do ... as that is the way to accomplish that (as far as I can tell) ...
" before making these POV changes"? ummm ... NPOV changes ... [just POV IYO] ...
"Are you even sane"? now you are questioning my sanity? I'm done trying to reason with you ...
Sincerely, JDR

Premanand

The list of famous skeptics should include Basava Premanand. He was or still is a full time skeptic and the editor and publisher of the Indian Skeptic ( or at least a prominent contrinbutor). He appeared on Dutch TV to speak about his most famous and frequent target Sathya Sai Baba Recently (2004 or end of 2003) there was a radio documentary on the BBC about him. Personally I had never heard of James Randi and the other skeptics until 2 years ago but I knew Basava Premanand quite well. Andries

anti-skeptics

What's with these anti-skeptic trolls all of the sudden? Biased links and unsupported opinions in topics is not "NPOV". Fools. - Lord Kenneth 23:14, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

"What's with these anti-skeptic trolls all of the sudden"? Calling people that honestly contribute to this topic "trolls" isn't a good sign for cooperation ...
"Biased links and unsupported opinions"? IYO ...
[snip not "NPOV"]
"Fools"? =-| goodness you like name-calling ...
Sincerely, JDR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation is you're interested. - Lord Kenneth 02:14, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

1st it's frmt is [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation]] for the mediation page.
2nd if you read Wikipedia:Conflict resolution, "this process cannot even begin if an edit war is ongoing" ... as this is now an edit war, nothing can be done till it stops ... can we try to achieve a temporary truce? [btw, I'm not too sure if it is possible, as your labellin' people names and various calls for help doesn't bode well [those calls were to a few who commented below in the Aggressive section ... not to mention mirv's suggestions (that you ignored; I incorporated his suggestion)]... as well as your removal of the dispute tags ...]
Sincerely, JDR

Aggressive Ignorance

Aggressive Ignorance is unacceptable here. I'm not sure how things are done where your from Kenneth, but critics will be heard. No one is looking to silence any valid information you present, but you WILL NEVER be allowed to present controvercial views without the voices of critics being heard. Logical discourse and freedom of speech are both areas which must be embraced by any skeptic with a love for science, or truth. It saddens me to sometimes think some love neither, and only seek to nihilistically reject anything new or difficult to understand which confronts them. Jack 02:15, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Truth (and science) aren't democratic. You can't sit around and decide by vote what becomes true and what doesn't. Unfounded claims (many "point out" that "many skeptics" are "closed-minded") and links with untrue information on them, sadly, are not what an enyclopedia should be about. You might as well criticize the "round-earth" theory - no encyclopedia is going to give flat-earthers a serious consideration. - Lord Kenneth 02:19, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)
"no encyclopedia is going to give flat-earthers a serious consideration"? ... see Flat Earth for "serious consideration" JDR
Am I the only one who thinks that JackLynch has more edits in talk pages than in actual articles, and that most of his changes to articles are criticized and reverted because considered POV? He should really just find a discussion forum somewhere where people talk about the subjects he's interested in instead of turning this ENCYCLOPEDIA into a big chat about his personal beliefs. MikeCapone 04:23, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. Jack's comment above has nothing to do with the Scientific skepticism article itself, which is what this talk: page is supposed to be for, it just looks like general complaining and accusation of "nihilism" against people who won't let him push his POV. Jack, if you're going to use article talk: pages, try to stick to discussing the article. Bryan 02:51, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
JDR, it doesn't matter that Flat Earth gets its own page. That makes sense. It's not presented as a "serious" theory, because it isn't. Again, WHAT IS YOUR BIAS AGAINST SKEPTICISM? Do you believe in psychic powers? Homeopathy? Angels? Near-death experiences? I'm reluctant to keep the "critics" section up, because it seems the only critics of scientific skeptics as a whole is from the pseudoscience crowd. I'll leave it up for now, but I might reconsider. I WILL NOT leave the links up. The links contain obvious lies, a stench of bias, half-truths, and slanderous statements. To say that some people think that the earth is flat on the Earth page would be silly and unwarranted, and I think this is, too. Just because skeptics may disbelieve new phenomonen does not mean they outright say it's completely bogus-- they'll change their mind if they see the evidence. Because of that fact, I'm tempted to remove the critics section altogether-- this "criticism" seems unwarrented, unhelpful to the article, and little more than the babyish whinings of those who wish to promote their pseudoscience agendas.
[snip Flat Earth is seriously considered]
not presented as a "serious" theory? you tell that to the flat-earthers ...
WHAT IS YOUR BIAS AGAINST SKEPTICISM? 1st, no bias, just gaurded against abuse ... 2nd ... skeptics have repeatedly shown that they are against progress and ridicule those that make progress in science ... [ex. the science 'skeptics' did think Nikola Tesla could not send power from the falls to the city in NY]
Do you believe in psychic powers? mabey ... acquisistion of information from _sources of information unknown to modern science_ could be a _possibility_ ... Do i have any? no ... do I know anyone with them? no ... will science eventually find out that ppl have a "spidey-sense"? time will tell ...
Homeopathy? Directly activate the immune response? if it works, do it ... if not, search for another method ...
Angels? is there "non-corporeal bioelectric intelligences" out there? mabey ... I've never seen them ... but that doesn't mean they don't exist ...
Near-death experiences? There certianly is some sort of experience when you nearly die ... now is that a religious experience? or is it just physilogical one? I'll let you decide ....
reluctant to keep the "critics" section up? I couldn't understand why, mabey because it shatters the concept that there is a "infallibility" of current science?
only critics of scientific skeptics as a whole is from the pseudoscience crowd? you are incorrect there ... some critics of scientific skeptics understand that current science (advanced as it is) is still vastly primative ....
[u'll] leave it up for now, but I might reconsider? just from a quick glance @ the history page it seems that you tried to rv ... but someone else [not me] had to reinstate it ...
WILL NOT leave the links up? Documenting references are called for ... they will be reinserted ...
obvious lies? IYO ...
a stench of bias? sure right [/end sarcasm] ...
half-truths? sure right [/end sarcasm again] ...
slanderous statements? umm no ...
To say that some people think that the earth is flat on the Earth page would be silly and unwarranted? IYO ... it being in a group of "see also" link [or a brief mention of it] would not be a big deal, IMO ... let the reader have the information and let them decide ... don't you, nor I, think for the reader ... give them the points and let them make up thier mind ... [and mabey that is where you and I disagree ... you may want to control the information (and keep it away) and I want to release it to them]
[snip this is, too]
Just because skeptics may disbelieve new phenomonen does not mean they outright say it's completely bogus? I think they have ... repeatedly through history ...
they'll change their mind if they see the evidence? ymmv on that ... some nvr accept it ...
Because of that fact, I'm tempted to remove the critics section altogether? I think you tried to and got rv'ed didn't you [have'ta check the edit history page]
this "criticism" seems unwarrented? YMMV on that ...
unhelpful to the article? again yymv ...
little more than the babyish whinings? [chuckles] ... another characterization attack ...
promote their pseudoscience agendas? you keep believein' that and how right you are .... and how wrong the dissenters are ...
Oh, and JDR? Please read-up on fallacies, you really don't understand (in fact, you seem to lack the intelligence. Why are you editing encyclopedia articles if you have the grammar of a third-grader?) - Lord Kenneth 19:53, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)
[chuckles again] I could go into a rant here (though I'll refrain) ... your characterization attacks _of me_ only bolsters my position and weaken yours ... Sincerely, JDR [PS, take a logics class, it's good for the mind] [PPS. Why do I let myself get drawn into discussion with ppl like this? I thought I was done trying to do this </end "think out loud">]

Other additions?

Two more things that should be added.

  • Why scientific skepticism so often attacks cults, belief in the paranormal and religion. This is obvious for me but may be not for outsiders.
  • 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)
cults and science are different things IMO ... one is faith based and the other is emperical [though you could say that the "theory" part of science (if untestable) borders nearer the cults] ... but, if done in a NPOV fashion, it could be informative ... JDR
  • 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

someone put that in already, i see [i did the wlnk on it] ... JDR
But there wasn't sufficient evidence to support the meteorite theory back then, now, was there? - Lord Kenneth 05:51, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
wasn't sufficient evidence? that could be said of certian position today ... JDR
Which position, JDR? - Lord Kenneth 14:03, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
I think "in the face of copious well documented instances to the contrary." needs a little expansion, stating just what some of those instances were, otherwise the statement is unsupported and risks being POV. Bryan 06:46, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I don't know the details of it [I didn't put it in, but I'll look into it] JDR [PS. mabey the "copious well documented" part could be rv'ed?]

I removed the reference to CSICOP because this article's subject is skepticism in general; I think specific criticism of CSICOP in particular would be better placed on CSICOP's page. Bryan 00:48, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Good idea (on second consideration) ... CSICOP advocates may have been offended (though a note should be placed there if there are some critical points to acknowledge) ... JDR
Along the same lines, I'm curious why you singled out Bruno Bauer as the source of what seems to be a very general and common criticism of scientific skepticism? I'm not familiar with 19th century theologians in general, so maybe he's a particularly well-known personage, but it still seems unlikely to me that he originated the idea or was a famous proponent of it. Bryan 07:07, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Checking out the article history further, I see that originally there was a specific quote from him there that has since been turned into a general non-quoted statement. Maybe the Bauer attribution should be replaced with a general "some critics say" instead? (yes, I'm responding to my own question in the same edit that's asking it. Seemed like the easiest way to write this :) Bryan 07:07, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Giving a attribution (?) to someone (for which he did say) is more advantageous to do IMO ... [now this could be a pro or con, pend your stance ... pro, he is a a particularly well-known personage and quoted often ... con, confines the source of the criticism to a particular person (some whom may not see him as "reputable")) ... I would leave him in .... mainly for the fact that he is quoted quite often in responsed to skeptics ... Sincerely, JDR
Not only have I not seen that -EVER- used in response to skeptics, but there is no historical factuality behind that claim. The heliocentric theory, for example, was before scientific skepticism existed much. It was the dogmas of the church, not science, which kept us from progress. I also believe (I might be wrong on this one) that continental drift was mostly challenged by the religious who believed in a young earth, not scientific skeptics. And of course relativity was challenged-- it was a new idea at the time! Obviously relativity was accepted once enough evidence came to light to support it, so it doesn't seem like skeptics (which you are quick to paint as a broadly closed-minded group) actively denied it. In fact, I don't see any basis for the criticisms you have placed at all. As to meteors, there was no enough scientific evidence-- anecdote, if anything. Since you don't want to discuss the changes first I'll just edit it, I'll revert your biased changes. - Lord Kenneth 14:20, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

"not seen that -EVER- used in response to skeptics"? you need to get out more then ... it's can be seen @ several places on the net ... "there is no historical factuality behind [the] claims"? Sorry to inform you there is ... "The heliocentric theory, for example, was before scientific skepticism existed much"? The heliocentric theory challenged the existing scientific theory that the sun orbited the earth ... [remember time and place are all important] ... "It was the dogmas of the church, not science, which kept us from progress"? Science at the time was part of the church ... thankfully the skeptics of the heliocentric theory didn't win out ... [you learn this in history] "I also believe (I might be wrong on this one) that continental drift was mostly challenged by the religious who believed in a young earth, not scientific skeptics" Continental drift was first proposed in 1912 by Alfred Wegener who noticed the similarity in shape of the coasts of Africa and South America. His ideas were not taken seriously by geologists (ie. science skeptics) who pointed out that there was no mechanism for continental drift ... "And of course relativity was challenged -- it was a new idea at the time!" very good ... @least that is something we can agree about ... "Obviously relativity was accepted once enough evidence came to light to support it, so it doesn't seem like skeptics actively denied it"? Many did "actively" deny it ... until well after Einstein's death (when, IIRC, the special one could be proven (the general is still to be tested, again IIRC)); though it is still debated in some circles (ala. duality)) ... "which [I am] quick to paint as a broadly closed-minded group"? I don't "paint" them .. they "paint" themselves ... "In fact, I don't see any basis for the criticisms you have placed at all. As to meteors, there was no enough scientific evidence -- anecdote, if anything."? It would seem that there is alot of data on it ... but I am not knowledgeable on it [someone else put that in] ... Since [I] don't want to discuss the changes first? I have continually [against my better judgement] tried to discuss it with you and reach a compromise ... when you can't reach a compromise (with me or the groups of other editors), then you get what we got here [you adhering to your POV only]... I'm not the only one that is editiing the article toward a NPOV (an' of which you disreguard) ... "I'll just edit it, I'll revert your biased changes." Ditto ... JDR

removed personal attack Politeness is always in order, Lord Kenneth. --MIRV

I already read it (had a few edit conflicts; in the meantime mirv took it out) and I am offened ... I've come to the conclusion that you are a troll ... Calling names [see this page and it's history], refusing to extend any etiquette, and refusal to compromise ... all signs of trolling ... JDR

The belief that the sun circled the earth was not a scientific one. It was a philosophical one based on religious ideals. Also, the others you mention seems to be nothing more than skepticism because of lack of evidence. When evidence was presented skeptics changed their minds, did they not? That's how science is what it is today. What's this phenomonon you believe in that you claim skeptics deny? You've dodged that question.- Lord Kenneth 15:45, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, if you'll read geocentric model, you'll find that incorrect; the belief that the sun circled the earth was scientific, based on scientific methods. — No-One Jones (talk) 15:56, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No, parts of its basis were scientific. The belief itself was an assumption mostly based on philosophic ideas (such as a perfect world made by a perfect god...). - Lord Kenneth 16:04, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

"The belief that the sun circled the earth was not a scientific one" .. you have that turned around ... mainstream science was part of the church ... skeptics did not believe the sun-centered theory ... "What's this phenomonon you believe in that you claim skeptics deny?" I am not proposing any theory ... just pointing out that skeptics deny penonomena that exist and which cannot be expalain by current science ... "When evidence was presented skeptics changed their minds, did they not?" I think that was noted in the article ... as a last note (I will not respond to you again), take a history class and a logic class, kenneth ... you need it ... JDR [PS. And as a clarification, I'll also add that skeptics have historically denied penonomena that existed and which could not be explained by the then current science. JDR].

mediation

What "phenomenon that exists" that "skeptics deny"? It's funny how you refuse to tell me. Also, because the church controlled "science" (not the scientific method) does not mean they were acting scientifically. I've compromised enough. Cease your edits for now, and request mediation on the link above. You are the one making the changes. It's your duty to seek mediation. - Lord Kenneth 16:23, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)


claims

OK, let us look at each claim to discuss it in detail and end this reversion war:

  1. "proponents & advocates": One side adds "proponents".
  2. "argument from ignorance": One side adds in the "analysis" section that a person has claimed that skeptics are making the fallacy of "argument from ignorance".


My responses:

  1. It would seem that "proponent" is synonymous with "advocate": http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?config=roget&q=proponent - we should therefore use one or the other
  2. The claim is factually incorrect. But it is a claim nonetheless, and should be mentioned appropriately.

I don't have time for more of the changes ATM, but we should work changes over one at a time instead of reverting each other. Feel free to add changes to the top section (but sign them, and do _not_ make them POV) --snoyes 18:51, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not really sure what either "side" of this edit war is trying to do, or what they find so unacceptable about the article. POV seems to abound here, and frequent deletions/reversions make it difficult to make edits that tinker with the details in an attempt to even things out. I've been trying nonetheless. The basic points of the criticism/analysis section are:
  • skeptics sometimes reject valid theories due to scientific conservativism
  • some historical examples have been (list)
  • but these theories were all eventually accepted anyway, and there's no way to tell ahead of time which will be "valid" and which won't be. So this is not necessarily and indictment of skepticism as a whole, but rather just how the system works.
Which doesn't seem very controversial to me (especially since I took the initiative on adding some of those points :), but evidently opinions differ. Bryan 19:16, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
We can only know if a theory is valid if evidence supports it. If no evidence supports it, there is no reason to adopt the theory as fact. So of course skeptics sometimes reject "valid theories", but Reddi/Mirv are putting a spin on it to make skeptics appear closed-minded. Also, I question the accuracy of the historical examples and whether they were disputed not due to SCIENTFIC skepticism but RELIGIOUS skepticism-- that is, skeptical of anything that contradicts current dogma. I think my version stands as the most fair and accurate. - Lord Kenneth 19:20, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
In some periods of history science (well, natural philosophy) and religion were fairly closely intertwined. However, it can quite rightly be pointed out that the scientific method wasn't really involved with stuff like Aristotlean cosmology, so that could be a reasonable caveat to add to the article. Instead of simply deleting the stuff you disagree with, why not add material to the article explaining why you disagree with it? That way when people come to read about scientific skepticism, they'll have all that information presented to them. Bryan 19:44, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
My biggest problem is that a lot of information is presented as fact when it's really just conjecture and outright lie. The goal of wikipedia is not to print out random user's personal unfounded ideas and opinions. - Lord Kenneth 22:16, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you asessments. However, I would state that _every_ claim (and therefore theory) was at one time rejected by a skeptic. This includes crackpot theories as well as theories that were later seen to be the most accurate. It is important to note that the skeptic position is to re-assess the judgement everytime new evidence surfaces. Skepticism is not a static belief, it just has a high threshhold for accepting a theory as truth than do other groups. Also, I don't think that it is OK to call any theory "valid". (I think you are aware of this point by putting 'valid' in quotation marks). This is essentially a vacuous claim, and the "valid" theory of the day that is generally agreed to explain and predicts the matters it describes best. --snoyes 20:30, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

skeptics

As a skeptic, I'm getting quite annoying at being told what I supposedly think. The links contain obvious lies, and I will not permit bull**** to stay on the page. - Lord Kenneth 19:29, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

How about telling us here in detail what you think is bull**** about those links, instead of just declaring them to be so? I haven't had a chance to look at them myself yet, so it may be obvious. But in a situation like this I think it's a good idea to lay out as much reasoning behind changes as possible. Bryan 19:33, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Will you please explain the "obvious lies" contained herein?
And for the love of flippin' Hades Terwilliger, why do you keep removing this link?
Thanks. — No-One Jones (talk) 19:34, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lies in The Myths of Skepticism

[against my better judegement, I'll comment to the following ... though I am trying to avoid directly interacting with Kenny (but I cannot let his ramblings stand without counterpoints) ... his so-called "lies" aren't ...]

Science is a self-correcnce I took the initiative on adding some of those points :), but evidently opinions differ. Bryan 19:16, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We can only know if a theory is valid if evidence supports it. If no evidence supports it, there is no reason to adopt the theory as fact. So of course skeptics sometimes reject "valid theories", but Reddi/Mirv are putting a spin on it to make skeptics appear closed-minded. Also, I question the accuracy of the historical examples and whether they were disputed not due to SCIENTFIC skepticism but RELIGIOUS skepticism-- that is, skeptical of anything that contradicts current dogma. I think my version stands as the most fair and accurate. - Lord Kenneth 19:20, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
In some periods of history science (well, natural philosophy) and religion were fairly closely intertwined. However, it can quite rightly be pointed out that the scientific method wasn't really involved with stuff like Aristotlean cosmology, so that could be a reasonable caveat to add to the article. Instead of simply deleting the stuff you disagree with, why not add material to the article explaining why you disagree with it? That way when people come to read about scientific skepticism, they'll have all that information presented to them. [[User:Brf "retained established theories" ... and this is pertient, "ask what evidence the claimant has or suggest what is lacking in the evidence presented and what would be more convincing evidence" ... if you can show any evidence of that "invisible dragon", it would suffice ...

There is one universal scientific method.

This is completely true, and one physics textbook I've read even talks about it. However, what the article does not mention is that among scientists the scientific method refers more to how science works and not a step-by-step process. Again, this is another criticism of skepticism that is completely irrelevent and a non-issue.

The author explicitly states ... there are "various methods of science and how disciplines differ based on the quality of data, area of study, level of maturity" etc ...

Science is our best method of acquiring knowledge.

THIS is a myth? Ha, no, just no. Science is the only method that has produced anything of value (technology, medicine, etc...). If someone sees a ghost, the writer says, it is scientifically invalid but could be true. IT DOESN'T MATTER. Science already has determined the probable "causes" of ghosts. Hallucination and hysteria. Science is based on repeated observation and even observations on observations to find out if what we see is even true-- illusions, for example.

What kind of knowledge that is being acquire? Science has produced valueable knowledge ... but, as Einstien says, "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts".

Scientist are more intelligent than average, and better than average problem solvers.

Again, whether this is true or not is irrelevent to what skepticism is.

It would seem that this is pointed out (on the cited page) because skeptics "place blind faith" that the "Scientist are more intelligent" ...

People may not be perfect with reasoning, but training in the use of formal methods of reasoning, and particularly knowledge of science improves that reasoning.

Again, what does this have to do with skepticism?

"Scientific" skepticism does not always apply reasoning ... ending up resorting to various fallacious stances ...

I could go on and on about this page. It mentions the flawed and silly PEAR studies, for example, as evidence. Here's a fallacy this bozo makes: "So clearly, being an atheist does not make one a good skeptic, why should being a good skeptic make one an atheist?" Obviously the answer is common sense: because there are multiple ways to arrive at a conclusion, some ways are incorrect, others are not. I could say this: Being scaly does not make a good reptile, why should a "good reptile" be scaly? Being loud makes someone obnoxious, so shouldn't being obnoxious also make someone loud? It's silly.

Go on and on? do it ... as the "lies" are not there ...
And please STOP attacking the person and not the proprositions (ie. bozo) ...
It may be that being scientific makes someone skeptical, but to conclude that being skepticial also make someone scientific is wrong ...
To as being an atheist does not make one a good skeptic, it is because of preconceptions [read that as "BIAS"] of that worldview ... and being a good skeptic does not make one immediately an atheist ...

As I said, I could critique that page all day - Lord Kenneth 20:10, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

Do it ... instead of alluding that you "could" ... JDR

Page protected

These ongoing reverts are not helpful. Please try to find a consensus. -- JeLuF 20:16, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)


I want to add the following to Analysis

  • Skeptics admit that they are sometimes wrong but they consider their mistakes more rare and less serious than those made by people who don't or selectively use the scientific method. After all, the list of pseudosciences, quacks, paranormal frauds and fallen gurus is a long list. Andries 21:10, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
How about true skeptics are READY to admit they are wrong in the face of evidence?- Lord Kenneth 20:49, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)


Review of Criticisms

[against my better judegement, I'll comment to the following ... though I am trying to avoid directly interacting with Kenny (and will continue to do so after this) ... but his so-called "analysis" is subjective ...]

Though general criticism of scientific skepticism is often employed by proponents of protosciences, and, more generally, by advocates of pseudoscience, scientific skepticism in practice can sometimes be abused.

You're right! Not accepting a theory unless there is sufficient evidence is VERY abusive!

When "sufficient" evidence is advanced, it is "blown off" (not the technical term) ... primarily because of dismissive attitudes and skeptical bias ...

Some skeptics reject theories which are legitimate on the basis of insufficient evidence, and although this is the very definition of skepticism it can in some cases be a fallacy (i.e. argument from ignorance).

You're right! Because we all know how science can decide a theory is valid if no evidence supports it. Yep, that's a huge flaw of scientific skeptics, rejecting theories that have no evidence. DAMN THAT EVIDENCE! DAMN IT STRAIGHT TO HELL! Oh, and argument from ignorance, yeppers! WE ALL know how skeptics insist something isn't true unless evidence appears that makes it true! Nope, skeptics certainly don't postulate the alternative "there is no reason to believe in something unless sufficient evidence supports it". Never, ever seen it.

A theory is NOT invalid if there is evidence. Just because current science cannot explain something does not mean it does not occur ...
Rejecting theories that have no explianation is a flaw IF you can observe the phenonomena ....
WE ALL know how skeptics insist something isn't true unless SOME mathematical equation doesn't appears that makes it true ...
Scientists certainly don't postulate an alternative if there is reason to believe in something with evidence to supports it. "Scientific" skeptics on the other hand do ...

Bruno Bauer has said that skeptics (and physicists in particular) tend to disbelieve, without investigation, the reality of phenomena that seem to contradict contemporary beliefs of science.

Yep, that Bruno Bauer, always on the ball, as usual! Quite an authority on the subject, and worthy of mention, being a historian and theologian and all.

Attacking the person and not his proposition does nothing to his proposition ...

It can even be said that the positions of skeptics must be viewed skeptically, as they are often quick to reject, prior to thorough investigation. What is usually viewed as closed-mindedness, however, may just be skepticism toward new ideas which do not yet have solid evidence supporting them.

Yes, rejecting ideas in which there is no evidence for! OH, THE HUMANITY! OH, THE SHAME! I'm glad that the first statement in this section is so well-known and considered fact by many. I'm glad that wikipedia includes mention of it, because it's so well-supported and well-known!

You omitted the "prior to thorough investigation". nice ommission ...

Critics of scientific skeptics point out that some scientific skeptics are neither open-minded nor scientific in their investigations.

Ah, yes, critics of science, such wonderful, unbiased people with no interior motives and no reasons to criticize the data-gathering process. Yep, no POV here, with no real examples being provided.

The "data-gathering process" can be flawed because of a researcher's bias ... but this works both way, for the skeptic and the critics ...

Incidents discounted by skeptics where contemporary scientific beliefs were contradicted and, of which were later shown to be correct, include the theory of continental drift (first proposed in 1912 by Alfred Wegener) and quantum mechanics.

OH NO! SKEPTICISM to NEW IDEAS? UNHEARD OF! HOW TERRIBLE! Why, those skeptics should be skeptical and adopt new ideas the second they come out, like our friend Reddi here suggests.

[chuckles] ... attacking the person and not the proposition is common refrain for you it seems ... when contemporary scientific beliefs were contradicted, skeptics are skeptical and do not adopt the new ideas intially after the verification (only repeatedly showing them can change the skeptic's mind) ...

This can also be seen dating back to the developement of the heliocentric (eg., Sun-centered) theory of the solar system overturning the skeptic's geocentric theory.

Yes, because we all know how advanced science and how widespread skepticism was back then! Opposition to such a theory CLEARLY must be due to scientific and not religious dogmas!

The "scientific dogmas" of the time were intertwined with the religious theories ...

Perhaps the most infamous example of scientists resistance to genuine evidence was Pierre-Simon Laplace's statement that rocks do not fall from heaven; in the face of copious well documented instances to the contrary.

Yes, well-documented back then, indeed! "There's mountains of ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, why don't you believe?"

That is a mischaracterization ....

However, in the historical cases where this has happened, the evidence generally gains eventual acceptance (often when the technology and associated experimental advances are made so that the falsifiability of the theory is possible). It can be important to consider the legitimacy of criticism by skeptics on a case-by-case basis, just as the plausibility of a particular target of skepticism must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, because all skeptics are one closely-knit tied together group who believe the exact same thing! It's best to mistrust these sneaky l'il plotting devils!

[chuckles] ... If you say so ...

It can be difficult (or simply impossible) to argue that skepticism of a particular claim is "excessive" until after the claim itself has been shown conclusively to be true or false (and, as science progresses, a reverification of that conclusion).

Good thing that disbelief/unbelief/denial/lack of belief pending evidence can be excessive, else the above statement wouldn't make much sense.

disbelief/unbelief/denial/lack of belief OF EXISTING evidence can be excessive ...

I'm tired of being nice and wasting my time. If it takes biting sarcasm to drive my point across, then that's what I'll use.

Tired of being nice? Me too ... though I will continue to try to be "nicey-nice"
wasting time? seems you like to do that ...
"biting sarcasm"? YMMV on that ...

Seriously, if skeptics and scientists were as closed-minded as you want people to believe then there wouldn't be any progress. The very fact that we have some level of progress today and know many things that are true (and what is false) is evidence of that. This whole criticism section is practically unwarrented and stupid.

Many skeptics are as closed-minded as many people believe ...
REAL scientists help futher progress.
The fact that some level of progress today and know many things that are true (and what is false) is evidence that scientists have overcame the "scientific" skeptics ...
The whole criticism section is practical AND warrented.
Sincerely, JDR

And I haven't even gotten to the links yet. - Lord Kenneth 20:49, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

Enough?

Pace. Enough. We can argue endlessly about which view is "correct", and it will achieve nothing but hurt feelings. I'm going to go read some Kuhn and Feyerabend (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Against Method, for starters), then try to write up a critical section with minimal reference to pseudo- and proto-sciences. Agreeable? — No-One Jones (talk) 21:00, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You're hardly a person to do it fairly. What possible legitimate criticisms of scientific skepticism can you dig up? You might as well criticize learning and attaining knowledge itself! - Lord Kenneth 21:34, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, many people do just that! It's up to us to report it neutrally. -- Tarquin 21:particular claim is "excessive" until after the claim itself has been shown conclusively to be true or false (and, as science progresses, a reverification of that conclusion).

Good thing that disbelief/unbelief/denial/lack of belief pending evidence can be excessive, else the above statement wouldn't make much sense.

disbelief/unbelief/denial/lack of belief OF EXISTING evidence can be excessive ...

I'm tired of being nice and wasting my time. If it takes biting sarcasm to drive my point across, then that's what I'll use.

Tired of being nice? Me too ... though I will continue to try to be "nicey-nice"
wasting time? seems you like to do that ...
"biting sarcasm"? YMMV on that ...

Seriously, if skeptics and scientists were as closed-minded as you want people to believe then there wouldn't be any progress. The very fact that we have some level of progress today and know many things that are true (and what is false) is evidence of that. This whole criticism section is practically unwarrented and stupid.

particular claim is "excessive" until after the claim itself has been shown conclusively to be true or false (and, as science progresses, a reverification of that conclusion).

Good thing that disbelief/unbelief/deniparticular claim is "excessive" until after the claim itself has been shown conclusively to be true or false (and, as science progresses, a reverification of that conclusion).

Good thing that disbelief/unbelief/denirent in this article could build up to dangerous levels. Bryan 22:32, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and in my version the criticisms were addressed. - Lord Kenneth 00:35, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)
Not from what I saw. As far as I could tell you just excised the criticisms entirely, and I don't consider that to be "addressing" them. Bryan 01:21, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No, I mentioned the criticisms and took out the unsupported statements (most were assertions that painted skeptics as being closed-minded fools). If you check my version, you'll see it mentions the criticisms. I just removed the lies and bias. - Lord Kenneth 01:40, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

I should also point out that, far from driving your point across, "biting sarcasm" probably does more to alienate people from you and therefore obscure your point. I skipped reading most of what you wrote above because it was fullJan 2004 (UTC)

You can only speak softly and nicely to a child for a certain amount of time-- if they still don't get it, harsher words might be in order. There should be no reason why the page should be locked down-- it was fine until JDR came and screwed it up. - Lord Kenneth 21:34, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
Besides, they couldn't understand it the first time, maybe the fault is me-- maybe I needed to express it differently. If people are against me sheerly because of how I argue and not what I say, well, perhaps they aren't the brightest Brady in the Bunch. - Lord Kenneth 21:36, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)


I'm not against you because of how you argue, I'm not paying attention to you because of how you argue - a significant difference. The louder and more angrily one shouts their opinion, the less interested I am in hearing it. Adding exclaimation marks does not make an argument any more correct. Bryan 22:25, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Again, they didn't listen to me when I was polite and insisted on reverting their changes instead of discussing it. Politeness to them is no longer a viable option for me if I am to stay sane. - Lord Kenneth 00:35, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)
If you feel your sanity is being threatened by the disagreements here on Wikipedia, then perhaps you really need to take a break from it for a while. If you prefer not to, then consider that being impolite is unlikely to get people to listen to you any better than being polite is. If I were to describe your earlier edits as "simple-minded baboon-style hackery unworthy of even a moron who's recieved a degree in moronicity," do you think that would that do any good either in convincing you that you're mistaken or in convincing other editors that you're mistaken? I would hope not. Bryan 01:21, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The people I'm impolite to are the people who don't care to listen in the first place, specifically, Reddi the Fringe Theory Fanatic. He's a lost cause. I don't expect other people to feel offended if I don't insult them. - Lord Kenneth 01:40, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)
"you keep believein' that and how right you are .... and how wrong the dissenters are" -- JDR

Refocus

To bring the discussion a bit more on track, there seems to be some confusion here between a discussion of science versus scientific skepticism. This article is supposed to be about the latter, not the former. (And no, the two are not the same topic, else we should not have a separate article.) My original point was about the bias of the article as it was, drawing as it did only on the opinions of the extreme hard-line faction of skeptical rhetoric. We might all agree on the usefulness and validity of science and still have different stances when it comes to our skeptical attitudes. For Ken to suggest that the community of skeptics is somehow monolithic and uniform in its orthodoxy is ludicrous. Let me give a few quotes from the skeptics (all current or one-time members of CSICOP) themselves to illustrate my point:

Ray Hyman once wrote: ". . . members of the scientific community often judge the parapsychological claims without firsthand knowledge of the experimental evidence. Very few of the scientific critics have examined even one of the many experimental reports on psychic phenomena. Even fewer, if any, have examined the bulk of the parapsychological literature.... Consequently, parapsychologists have justification for their complaint that the scientific community is dismissing their claims without a fair hearing. . . ."
Marcello Truzzi wrote: "Originally I was invited to be a co-chairman of CSICOP by Paul Kurtz. I helped to write the bylaws and edited their journal. I found myself attacked by the Committee members and board, who considered me to be too soft on the paranormalists. My position was not to treat protoscientists as adversaries, but to look to the best of them and ask them for their best scientific evidence. I found that the Committee was much more interested in attacking the most publicly visible claimants. . . . The major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy. The Committee has made many mistakes. My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury when they were simply lawyers. . . . "
"There are three broad approaches to anomaly studies. . . . The second common approach is what critics usually call the debunkers' approach. This is the main attitude of the orthodox scientific community towards anomaly claims. It is characterized by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). "Whatever is claimed is nothing but ... something else." Seemingly anomalous phenomena are denied first and sometimes investigated only second. Like the Fortean the debunker is not concerned with the full explanation. Whereas the Fortean types don't want explanations, the debunkers don't need them as they believe they have already them." in Reflections on the Reception of Unconventional Claims in Science

And then there were several prominent members of CSICOP who left over the Mars effect fiasco, reflecting disagreement on how skeptical debate should be carried out.

As I understand it, the skeptical community has some of its own neutral terminology for describing such attitudes. The "wet" skeptics (their term, not mine) hold the attitude that the subjects they attack are not worth addressing on their merits since they are obviously false to any right-thinking person, and so the wet skeptic is justified in using primarily (and often exclusively) ridicule and ad hominem in attacking these subjects. The "dry" skeptics (again, their term) believe that ridicule and being impolite will turn off too many otherwise receptive listeners, and they do their best to remain polite and to address these subjects in detail on a scientific basis, fearing that failure to do so will leave people with the false impression that the skeptical/scientific community has no counterargument. Indeed, some in the community believe that the failure to address quackery, pseudoscience, etc, on detailed scientific grounds is a real impediment to the acceptance and promotion of science in the general populace.

These are the types of differences in views that should be reflected in the article. Grizzly 10:41, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

nicely put, Grizzly ... this should be should be reflected in the article. JDR
That's very well and good, but I never said skeptics were united like that. If anything, I suggested the opposite. I am simply trying to describe what skepticism is, while removing the bias and lies from the main page. I have never heard the term "wet" and "dry" skeptic, I would not be suprised if one of your anti-skeptic literature or web pages made that term up. Also, I could quite care less about CSICOP. You have an unhealthy obsession with them, perhaps you should seek some help or perhaps calm down? Whatever CSICOP allegedly does, true or not, it irrelevent to me as I don't have any ties to them-- I care about facts, not organizations. - Lord Kenneth 00:37, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
The terms "wet skeptic" and "dry skeptic" are used in the sci.skeptic FAQ, which is hardly anti-skeptic literature, so I think it would be fair to use the terms in the article. I'm surprised that a well-read skeptic like you hasn't read that FAQ already. — No-One Jones (talk) 23:46, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The distinction looks useful, and if there's no "official" terminology to describe it then I believe it's still fine to pick a set of labels and just add the caveat that they're not widely recognized. Bryan 00:21, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


The only problem I have with the terms is that I've never heard them before. Can you find some more sources that talk about them so I can be satisifed? And as for religions, skeptics DO "debunk" them, in a way: claims made such as miracles, for example, are easily debunked, and occam's razor can do the rest. - Lord Kenneth 03:14, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the terms "wet" and "dry" are important: they're just handy labels for different approaches to skepticism. The distinction between the two modes of thought -- dismissive hostility and honest inquiry -- would be the same even if the words were different; it would not go away if the two camps were labeled as "grub skeptics" and "worm skeptics", "gold skeptics" and "silver skeptics", or even "A skeptics" and "B skeptics" -- the words themselves do not matter. — No-One Jones [[User tathat would that do any good either in convincing you that you're mistaken or in convincing other editors that you're mistaken? I would hope not. Bryan 01:21, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The people I'm impolite to are the people who don't care to listen in the first place, specifically, Reddi the Fringe Theory Fanatic. He's a lost cause. I don't expect other people to feel offended if I don't insult them. - Lord Kenneth 01:40, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)
"you keep believein' that and how right you are .... and how wrong the dissenters are" -- JDR

Refocus

To bring the discussion a bit more on track, there seems to be some confusion here between a discussion of science versus scientific skepticism. This article is supposed to be about the latter, not the former. (And no, the two are not the same topic, else we should not have a separate article.) My original point was about the bias of the article as it was, drawing as it did only on the opinions of the extreme hard-line faction of skeptical rhetoric. We might all agree on the usefulness and validity of science and still have different stances when it comes to our skeptical attitudes. For Ken to suggest that the community of skeptics rs, and they do their best to remain polite and to address these subjects in detail on a scientific basis, fearing that failure to do so will leave people with the false impression that the skeptical/scientific community has no counterargument. Indeed, some in the community believe that the failure to address quackery, pseudoscience, etc, on detailed scientific grounds is a real impediment to the acceptance and promotion of science in the general populace.

These are the types of differences in views that should be reflected in the article. Grizzly 10:41, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

nicely put, Grizzly ... this should be should be reflected in the article. JDR
That's very well and good, but I never said skeptics were united like that. If anything, I suggested the opposite. I am simply trying to describe what skepticism is, while removing the bias and lies from the main page. I have never heard the term "wet" and "dry" skeptic, I would not be suprised if one of your anti-skeptic literature or web pages made that term up. Also, I could quite care less about CSICOP. You have an unhealthy obsession with them, perhaps you should seek some help or perhaps calm down? Whatever CSICOP allegedly does, true or not, it irrelevent to me as I don't have any ties to them-- I care about facts,amount of evidence). If that "overwhelming" evidence is impossible to attain, the skeptic will continue to disbelieve the truth ...
And, on reflection, I believe that was the main point of the German's quote ... a phenonomena [read: evidence] is discredited, because it contradict the skeptics preconceptions ...
JDR 22:58, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
How many times does one have to see the same scam to decide there's probably no merit to it? Someone HAS to be dismissive once they see enough flaws in an argument. Sure, skeptics are open to evidence, but tell them the world is flat and they'd probably laugh at you. Also, when someone claims ghosts are real "because they've seen one", skeptics might be "dismissive" (well, Occam's razor-wise) and say it was more probably a hallucination. For example, if I hear one more "they found Noah's Ark!" I'm going to scream.
One doesn't have to be completely nicey-nice when they inquire, either, especially when money and health are on the line (psychics, alternative medicines, etc...) - Lord Kenneth 20:41, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

revisions

  • I agree, in general, with Lord Kenneth's revision.
    • The Copernicus example is horrible; he was not persecuted by scientific skeptics, he was persecuted by religious fundamentalists -- in fact, scientific skeptics generally agreed with him.
      • At the time of Copernicus (1473-1543) the weight of evidence for a sun-centered (heliocentric) world view was not big enough. He was never actually persecuted because he published his manuscripts on his death bed, because he was a perfectionist & probably also because he was afraid of persection. Few scientists embraced Copernicus' ideas between 1543-1600. A supporter of Copernicus ideas, called Giordano Bruno who additionally believed in the 'heresy' of extraterrestial life, was executed for heresy at 1600. Later came Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) and then Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) who based his calculations on the observations of the astromomer Tycho Brahe. At the time of Kepler the heliocentric world view should have been accepted because of the evidence. By the way, the Catholic church retracted its condemnation for heresy of Galilei in 1983. All information from On the shoulders of giants by Stephen Hawking 2002 Andries
    • The link to protoscience was misleading -- protoscientists generally ARE scientific skeptics, as scientific skepticism is the backbone of the scientific method.
    • The quote by the German theologian should be removed since it is both unreferenced and not given in an actual quote format.
    • I think a section "criticizing" scientific skepticism is a good idea. It might be ok to mention plate tectonics there -- many scientists heckled the man who posulated that theory. In any case, Copernicus is not a good example.
The Copernicus example is horrible? ok ... though the exact religious fundamentalists vs scientific skeptics [of the time] is debateable ... (if I had put that in, it probably was because of my personal frustration to being called names (and am sorry if that was the case, a better example could have been cited)) ... lets remove that and put in a more appropriate one ...
The link to protoscience was misleading? protoscientists sometimes are scientific skeptics ... but they've routinely been called pathological and marginalized by the majority of other "scientific" skeptics. Protoscience needs to be mentioned.
As to the German theologian quote ... unreferenced? It is used by those that critique so-called "scientific" skeptics ... and as to the "actual quote format", that was there in the beginning, but was asked (by the objectors of any critique) to be paraphrased .... if you look @ the history you'll see that ...
Section "criticizing" scientific skepticism is neccessary ... as self-examination is important ...
ok to mention plate tectonics there? I'd hope (as that is the widest known of the examples) ...
Copernicus is not a good example? ok ... mabey Stanley B. Prusiner's prions (Nobel Prize in 1997) or Ignaz Semmelweis's innovations in hygene (ridiculed by the medical establishment) could replace that.
Sincerely, JDR
Again, things aren't treated as true by science until enough evidence has been shown to support it. Early fields were not treated "hostily" by skeptics, but with, obviously, skepticism. Perhaps you have trouble recognizing between skeptics and people who express doubt to a theory because they have personal reasons to discount them. "Protosciences", as you define them, such as m-theory, are embraced by skeptics -- but they are not treated as true, because they lack evidence. It's obvious you can't recognize between personal bias and skepticism. - Lord Kenneth 20:31, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
"Things aren't treated as true by science until enough evidence has been shown to support it"? Usually, even when "enough" evidence is shown, it is dismissed [critizing the research %y you'll see that ...
Section "criticizing" scientific skepticism is neccessary ... as self-examination is important ...
ok to mention plate tectonics there? I'd hope (as that is the widest known of the examples) ...
Copernicus is not a good example? ok ... mabey Stanley B. Prusiner's prions (Nobel Prize in 1997) or Ignaz Semmelweis's innovations in hygene (ridiculed by the medical establishment) could replace that.
Sincerely, JDR
Again, things aren't treated as true by science until enough evidence has been shown to support it. Early fields were not treated "hostily" by skeptics, but with, obviously, skepticism. Perhaps you have trouble recognizing between skeptics and people who express doubt to a theory because they have personal reasons to discount them. "Protosciences", as you define them, such as m-theory, are embraced by skeptics -- but they are not treated as true, because they lack evidence. It's obvious you can't recognize between personal bias and skepticism. - Lord Kenneth 20:31, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
"Things aren't treated as true by science until enough evidence has been shown to support it"? Usually, even when "enough" evidence is shown, it cts,efrain as it seem that you cannot stop that; let the chips fall when editing is possible ...) JDR 22:58, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the two link removals, and abstain on the Copernicus issue since I don't have much historical grounding there. But I very much agree that a "criticism" section is useful, if only to provide a basis for countercriticism. :) Bryan 03:59, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
criticism and countercriticism (eg. point - counterpoint) would be informative ... JDR
I myself realized it has some purpose, that's why I eventually kept it in. My reverts are for factual accuracy and NPOV. Yes, I did butcher a lot of stuff out-- I removed what is necessary. The links I removed (except for the one which was caught in the edit war) were biased, as I'm familiar with some of the people running the page and I know they are *not* trustworthy or honest sources. If you have any other questions, you're free to ask me, but no one has. - Lord Kenneth 04:12, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't find anywhere above that they specifically referred to the individual issues. Lirath Q. Pynnor

"individual issues"? Othery you'll see that ...
Section "criticizing" scientific skepticism is neccessary ... as self-examination is important ...
ok to mention plate tectonics there? I'd hope (as that is the widest known of the examples) ...
Copernicus is not a good example? ok ... mabey Stanley B. Prusiner's prions (Nobel Prize in 1997) or Ignaz Semmelweis's innovations in hygene (ridiculed by the medical establishment) could replace that.
Sincerely, JDR
Again, things aren't treated as true by science until enough evidence has been shown to support it. Early fields were not treated "hostily" by skeptics, but with, obviously, skepticism. Perhaps you have trouble recognizing between skeptics and people who express doubt to a theory because they have personal reasons to discount them. "Protosciences", as you define them, such as m-theory, are embraced by skeptics -- but they are not treated as true, because they lack evidence. It's obvious you can't recognize between personal bias and skepticism. - Lord Kenneth 20:31, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
"Things aren't treated as true by science until enough evidence has been shown to support it"? Usually, even when "enough" evidence is shown, it cts,efrain as it seem that you cannot stop that; let the chips fall when editing is possible ...) JDR 22:58, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the two link removals, and abstain on the Copernicus issue since I don't have much historical grounding there. But I very much agree that a "criticism" section is useful, if only to provide a basis for countercriticism. :) Bryan 03:59, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
criticism and countercriticism (eg. point - counterpoint) would be informative ... JDR
I myself realized it has some purpose, that's why I eventually kept it in. My reverts are for factual accuracy and NPOV. Yes, I did butcher a lot of stuff out-- I removed what is necessary. The links I removed (except for the one which was caught in the edit war) were biased, as I'm familiar with some of the people running the page and I know they are *not* trustworthy or honest sources. If you have any other questions, you're free to ask me, but no one has. - Lord Kenneth 04:12, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't find anywhere above that they specifically referred to the individual issues. [[User:Lir|Lir Why don't you go make the Dynamic theory of gravity fan club and leave wikipedia alone? - Lord Kenneth 23:03, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

Even IF the evidence is VERIFIED to be accurate ... it has been disreguared on occasions ...
No way to know if a claim is correct unless it is properly tested? IF it is "properly tested" ... many claims are still disreguarded (until years later o' course) ....
any legitmate examples? See the ones I listed above ...
laughable and irrelevent claims? no, that is untrue ... there are serious and relevant claims to be noted ...
[snip Dynamic theory comment]
JDR 23:18, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Uh, just because people deny some scientific advancements doesn't mean they are scientific skeptics. Scientific skepticism refers to those who accept theories based on evidence presented, which consists of just about the entire credible scientific establishment. I don't know who you are trying to attack. Ideas such as relativity and quantum mechanics were accepted quite fast as the evidence built up, as it's only been about 60 years since their adoption. I think you're just talking out of your ass at this point. - Lord Kenneth 00:32, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Reddi and MIRV

It's obvious that they are trying to make anyone who is closed-minded toward scientific progress a "scientific skeptic" (despite being against the very definition) and are trying to make them seem like a tight-knit group of people. JDR's "points" are completely and absolutely inaccurate. It's hard to understand him because of his childish writing. I propose that JDR find another web site to troll on, perhaps he can make his own where he can rant all day!

Wikipedia is not an outlet for those with an agenda, especially those against fact and science. NPOV is cherished here, not POV attempts to discredit a philosophy based the fact that your theory is not accepted by the scientific establishment. Since Reddi/JDR is unable to understand and does not want to, I propose he be ignored and his POV changes edited out.

Others have noted his erratic spelling, constant plugging in of errors, using test from other sources, and inability to come to a compromise because of his agendas. Reddi, how about this: You leave this page alone, and discuss any future changes you would like to make with a sysop.

As for Mirv, you are just plain anti-skeptic, and you know of your agenda. I don't think there's anything to discuss with you. - Lord Kenneth 01:00, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Kenny, you believe that I am unable to understand the discussion? personal attacks, personal attack and more personal attacks ... is all I see above ... I understand that ...
Does not want to understand? YMMV on that ..
ignore and edited out my points? Hmm ... doesn't seem too NPOV there ... the points are valid and mostly accurate ...
As to the "erratic spelling"? yep ... it's americanish (though I do try to mimimize any sp mistakes) ... get over it ...
plugging in of errors? I have not always been right (though I have been at other times) ... I readily accept that ... "The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant." — Plato
using test from other sources? text from other sources you mean? ... I don't plagiarise if that is what you are implying ... I give acknowledgment and references when I can ... and facts can't be plagiarised.
Inability to come to a compromise? INYNSHO ...
Leave this page alone? No ... I will edit continue to strive to improve it (when that is called for) ...
[snip discuss it with a sysop]
that's all for now ... JDR

Starling's version

I would like to note that Tim Starling's attempt to more thoroughly explain the conflict between skeptics and their detractors is an admirable job ... it draws a "clear" line to where skeptic's information (and thier warnings of the danger of pseudoscience) should be and where the detractor's information (and thier notes over the criticism of valid theories) should go. Though there could be more said on both sides (and I believe that there will be and that should be allowed), I'd like to extend a note of thanks to him, personally (not that that means a damn thing, but TIFWIW) ... Sincerely, JDR

I agree, he generally did a much better job than you did. More factual, more concise, and grammatically correct. - Lord Kenneth 15:30, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Excised text:

"In other words, it is well recognized in part because it is understood."

I have no idea what that means, Gene. Can you explain it please? -- Tim Starling 08:06, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

"This serves, therefore, as a warning against ignoring evidence when no good theory can be found to fit it."

Evidence can only be interpreted using an appropriate hypothesis or model. Theory is an exceedingly important part of science, and cannot be ignored. To say that this case serves as a warning against ignoring evidence is arguable. -- Tim Starling 02:16, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

That there is such a thing as theory-driven resistence to what seem to be observed facts is a commonplace notion in the history & philosophy of science. If you think I am saying theory should be ignored (will you ever find a mathemaician who would say that? I doubt it) then you should read what I wrote more carefully. On a Quineinan view, knowledge is a kind of web, with the most important elements on the inside, where we store logic and the like. We want to disturb the web as little as possible when accomodating new data, and one way to do that is to resist the data. There is logic in this--just because someone says they've achieved cold fusion, one hardly needs to believe them on the spot. But that does not mean we should ignore the problem of theory-driven resistence, which you seem to be proposing. If we took that far enough, we wouldn't have a structure of scientific revolutions, because we wouldn't have any scientific revolutions. Gene Ward Smith 05:22, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's good, what you said just then. Write about the viewpoint, don't write from viewpoint. I'm happy with "that there is such a thing as theory-driven resistence to what seem to be observed facts is a commonplace notion in the history & philosophy of science." I'm not happy with "this serves, therefore, as a warning". -- Tim Starling 09:04, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Limits and scope of scientific skepticism

What I miss in the current version, is a discussion of the scope and limits of scientific skepticism. Phenomonena that are spontaneous and random such as meteorites are difficult to research empirically. This must have been the reason why it took so long before falling stones were accepted by skeptics. Likewise, many believers of the paranormal will claim that these paranormal phenomena are random and spontaneous. They will say that the failure of scientists to observe them is only because scientists rely too much on controlled obsveration and unjustly belittle the value of anecdotical evidence.

Andries 3 Feb 2004

I should probably point out that many known phenomena are spontaneous and random, but because they are observed by scientists with large amounts of data recording equipment, they are believed universally. For example [1]. The problem with paranormal claims is that the only source of data is from unreliable witnesses running poorly controlled experiments... And then I should probably remember that although discussing philosophy on talk pages is interesting, we should probably be writing articles instead. -- Tim Starling 23:28, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Martin Gardner

I'm removing the previously removed reference to "discontinuance" of "Mathematical Games" for three reasons:

  1. It is a detail almost entirely without relevance here
  2. The desire to include is suspect as a countering of the fact of the long-running column potentially adding to Gardner's stature with false suggestion that it turned out to be a bad idea after all. Although the title of the column has changed as different people have taken it over, that is more a reflection of reverence for Gardner: "I'm not the new MG, bcz no one can replace him"
  3. The subject of what happened with "Mathematical Games" is far too extensive to be covered here, tho it could make a good article in itself, beyond the single 'graph in mathematical games; for starters, it would explain the relationship between Gardner and Hofstadter, and the significance of Hofdstadter's column title.

--Jerzy 03:37, 2004 Feb 8 (UTC)

relevance? it's just a note that it was not "MG" anymore ... (YMMV on it's relevance though)
suspect fact to make a false suggestion? Mabey some reader's inference is a bit more than just what it was intended to be ... =-]
What happened with "Mathematical Games"? That'd be neat to see IMO ...
The line reads basically the same to me ... mabey a note on what it's called now would be good? mabey not ... JDR 14:24, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC) [gonna put in a "the" though]