|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
19th November 2013, 12:33 AM | #1 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,655
|
The Definition of Skeptic
The Skeptoid definition http://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php: Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.
So, how does this differ from either common sense or science? I don't believe that this is a correct definition. Ludicrous claims: These are typically doubted by common sense. When someone says something completely ridiculous, people tend to assume that the person making the claim is the problem. This person could be mentally ill, or affected by drugs, or could be lying. Scientific investigation: When you do have rigorous testing or observation then this just ordinary science. Ludicrous claims with supporting pseudo-science: This seems to me to be the area where you have genuine skepticism. Where either a claim of scientific support is made based on flawed science or where it is specifically stated that real science does apply somehow. This then tends to create the appearance of evidence when none actually exists. Also, claims like this tend to elevate faulty or pseudo-science to the same level as real science as though some wacky theory were actually debatable. Skepticism to me has a role in pointing out when two ideas are not of equal merit. I've seen a number pseudo-scientific claims about bigfoot, aliens, ghosts, etc. If you suggest that the definition of skepticism is identical to the definition of science then simply by being skeptical you are also suggesting that these ideas are worthy of scientific investigation or are legitimate science. And, does not seem to be the case. |
24th November 2013, 08:52 AM | #2 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,358
|
Then you'd have to define "reason" and "critical thinking". This might be more tricky than you'd imagine at first glance. So no, it's not a particularly helpful definition.
When I read The Demon-Haunted World (which almost every self-identified skeptic will recommend you read), "skepticism" seemed to be used in the sense of incredulity, being catious before accepting ideas. Not a very esoteric definition, which certain people will be prone to. |
26th November 2013, 04:03 PM | #3 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,454
|
And 'common sense'
As a matter of fact, I've come around to believing that there is no such thing as objective 'common sense' - that common sense is a cultural phenomenon, and that it often conflicts with skepticism and is possibly something skeptics should oppose. Science usually means study of nature, so many skeptics would reject redefining skepticism as science, since a lot of skeptics like to discuss news events, politics, ethics and so on. |
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett |
|
28th November 2013, 02:20 AM | #4 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 28,959
|
Well, according Wikipedia, science is:
Quote:
Quote:
I think that science and skepticism are related though, and a good scientist is a skeptical scientist. "Common sense" is a bit different, but it's a useful heuristic. Occasionally though, science defies "common sense" assumptions. The sun doesn't "rise" and "set" as "common sense" might tell you. It only appears to because the Earth is a giant rotating ball. |
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare |
|
28th November 2013, 11:33 PM | #5 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 20,570
|
A skeptic is someone who is willing to accept proof, but demands that proof be presented rigorously, in a logical fashion, to eliminate the strong doubts that a skeptic uses as his starting position.
|
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
22nd December 2013, 12:46 PM | #6 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,655
|
I would say that skepticism is more of a refutation of junk science. Again, if you suggest that skepticism is simply having doubt about a claim then you are also suggesting that all claims have merit for debate. This really doesn't make any sense.
When people claim that there is evidence of aliens on Mars, or evidence of bigfoot, or evidence of ghosts, or evidence of ancient aliens, or that crystal skulls have magic properties, or that you can heal someone by adjusting their aura, or that women can magically keep from getting pregnant from a rape, or that hyper-inflation is a threat then you are not in the realm of science. These things are not really debatable in scientific terms because there are vast amounts of evidence to the contrary. I can give you a pretty good example. In 1990, a man claimed to be William Thomas who played the character Buckwheat on the Little Rascals. I remember the interview with him where they had brought in George McFarland who played Spanky. The host wanted McFarland to ask the man questions from the time of the show to see if he could be Thomas. McFarland said that there would be questions that he could ask but there was no point since both he and Thomas' daughter knew that William Thomas was dead. I would call that skepticism because instead of treating imposter Bill English's claim as though it had merit, it put the burden of proof on English to even raise the discussion to the level of testing. There's no reason to treat every crackpot claim as though it warrants rigorous scientific investigation. If this still doesn't make sense to you then just consider things like herbal supplements. You claim that a particular plant or plant extract has some beneficial effect just because. Then you claim that the onus is on the scientific community to prove that your miracle herb doesn't do what you claim. That is ludicrous. In mathematical terms, that would raise scientific doubt to the level of infinity as though nothing were certain. I'll give you another example. Two different people have told me that my house is haunted. Now, if we use the weak definition of skepticism that some seem to prefer then logically my house would need to be investigated. Do some infrared photography, see if we can pick up some EVPs, maybe hold some seances or bring in people who are sensitive mediums. Presumably, only then could the matter be settled. However, this isn't reality because there is already an expert on the matter, me. I've lived in my house for the past twenty years. I've never heard mysterious noises, never seen any apparitions, never had mysterious images appear on pictures, never found strange voices in audio recordings, have never had objects fly across the room, and have never felt any strange presences. By the vast and overwhelming amount of evidence, my house isn't haunted and no vague claim rises to the level of serious consideration. This is what skepticism should be. In contrast, the weak definition is both self-destructive and unworkable. So, why would you promote this? |
9th January 2014, 03:24 AM | #7 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Swansea in the UK
Posts: 2,371
|
Probably the most lasting memory from my experience of studying physics courses with the OU 20 years ago is that it was frequently the case that my common sense expectation of a situation or outcome was so often wrong. The maths would predict an outcome that didn't seem right to my common sense, but the outcome always went with the maths, denying my common sense. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|