Skepticism and Its Discontents

[Avi]

There is a certain attitude among the cognoscenti that rather irks me. You see, I am highly skeptical of extraordinary claims, and I do most certainly believe that they require extraordinary proof. If you tell me that you can read minds, predict the future, start fires through intention, etc., I (and James Randi, who will pay you much more than I can scrape together) would like a controlled demonstration. Nonetheless, I do see the failings of rationalism and scientism, and skeptics can be brazenly dismissive of those whose experiences do not follow the supposedly logical line, whatever that may be.

The functioning of the human mind is incredibly manipulable and biased (see Kahneman and Tversky, winners of the Nobel Prize, on this point), and this includes the minds of rationalists, logicians and scientists. The scientific method was devised to help eliminate bias (although it functions rather poorly in this regard, way back to the fudged data of Gregor Mendel and his pea plants). Yet even with this tool, i.e., the scientific method, bias and error are routine. Supposedly, peer review will triumph over poorly conducted research, but this is a rarity. Most scientific disciplines tend to operate under a rather hidebound consensus that is very reluctant to admit new data. One must be as skeptical of grandiose claims made for science, logic and rationality, as one is of the efficacy of prayer. Too, humans do not do well in thinking of future consequences - most are focused on immediate reward, and this bias poisons the fruits of scientific inquiry.

Of course, religious believers are the most common target of the rational cadre, whose membership cards boast vaguely anarchic slogans like, "No gods, no masters." Never mind that Margaret Mead produced this saying on one of her contraception pamphlets: that her supposed anthropological work in Samoa was a steaming, ideologically-driven pile is notwithstanding. Now, I could discuss the horrors of ideology, especially when connected to the ideas of purity and transcendence (the thousand-year Reich, the various workers' paradises, Jim Jones) until the cows come home. Unfortunately, rationalists do not view themselves as being susceptible to these ideas or to their psychological underpinnings. It might detract from their view of themselves as superior, logical beings (which, in fact, the human state does not permit). Naturally, religious people are dismissed as stupid, and as intellectual failures. I have been asked many times, "How can you say you're a skeptic if you believe in G-d?" I had to return my rationalist membership card, even though its slogan was "Party Hearty!" Nonetheless, I see many skeptics and rationalists as invested in the ideas of science and rationality, with little actual understanding of either. They have faith in science and rationality to provide needed answers. I wish they were right.

Now, do I believe that the C2C Friday night prayer group has demonstrable effects? No, I do not. But neither do I believe that praying for the ill is wrong. If I were terribly ill, I would not object if people I knew prayed for me. I'd like it even better if they visited me. I would feel supported and cared for, much more than from an anonymous prayer vigil by anonymous audience members on some random radio show. Is that irrational? As Ivan Karamazov exclaims, "If G-d does not exist, then everything is permitted." Is permitting everything in the name of Rationalism or Science rational, then? Mind you, it wasn't the Vatican or the Elders of Zion behind the horrific eugenics debacles of the 20th century. Scientists believed sincerely that Native Americans and Blacks should be sterilized in large numbers to preserve the dubious claims of 'racial hygiene.' I cite this only because Rationalists, while pointing out the horror, which nobody denies, of religious fanatics can't seem to come to grips with Stalin or Mao, who were by no means niggardly in their killing or in their pursuit and killing of religious believers. I don't think this debate has much merit. Tit for tat does not bring us to an understanding of the real causes of humanity's inhumanity to humanity - uh, rationally, I mean.

[stevesh]

Interesting post (though I only read it once).

and I do most certainly believe that they require extraordinary proof. I don't think so. Extraordinary claims require exactly the same level of proof as ordinary ones. You either prove it or you don't.

It's always seemed to me to be amazingly arrogant to think that a mere five hundred years after the invention of the scientific method our investigative toolkit is complete. Feels the same to me as the climate change people and their 'settled science'.

I've never understood the concept of prayer. Everything is written, yes ? So the purpose of prayer is to change God's mind ?

[BobGrau]

Great post Avi. Here is my immediate reaction:

"If G-d does not exist, then everything is permitted."

this is bullshit. "no-one's going to punish me so it's ok to be an asshole"? wrong. it's still not ok to be an asshole. stop looking for excuses.

[Avi]

Great post Avi. Here is my immediate reaction:

this is bullshit. "no-one's going to punish me so it's ok to be an asshole"? wrong. it's still not ok to be an asshole. stop looking for excuses.

This was Dostoyevsky's argument, put into the mouth of one of his characters, in The Brothers Karamazov. I'm not sure how much merit it has in behavioral terms. Game theory seems to indicate that one should cooperate for the best outcome. Yet, in terms of scientific discovery, and in terms of decision-making for the masses, where the effects are not up close and personal (well, that orphan drug costs millions and it will only save about a hundred people), it is a valid supposition. Morality vs. the need to know, resource expenditure, utilization of new technology, etc.

[b_dubb]

wrong. right. regardless ... if you act like a jerk or if you cause people pain sooner or later that's going to come back to you ten fold.

[Avi]

and I do most certainly believe that they require extraordinary proof. I don't think so. Extraordinary claims require exactly the same level of proof as ordinary ones. You either prove it or you don't.

I borrowed that from James Randi and Carl Sagan (The Demon-Haunted World) who were also interested in debunking extraordinary claims. Perhaps the people claiming to speak to the dead or turn the pages of a book with their minds felt that Randi was asking for extraordinary proof - but yes, proof is proof (until it isn't).

It's always seemed to me to be amazingly arrogant to think that a mere five hundred years after the invention of the scientific method our investigative toolkit is complete. Feels the same to me as the climate change people and their 'settled science'.

Well, the means by which we investigate have changed a great deal (electron microscopy, CERN), but the tool-kit as such remains the same: observation, hypothesis, experimentation (where possible) and reporting of results. I have no argument with this method to answer material questions, although as with climate science, the answers can and do vary (and can be driven by political expedience, on both sides, sadly). Of course, the Scientific Method does not do well in answering non-material questions. Through the use of fMRI and PET scans, I have long studied the brain on music. While I could see what was happening in the brain, I could not address why it was happening. What is beauty? How and why are people moved (or not moved) by beautiful music? Some things are not quantifiable. Do we need them to be? Isn't quantification an attempt to manipulate (i.e., change G-d's mind?)? The human drive to control all things, perhaps because we were once helpless and dependent (?), is frightening.

I've never understood the concept of prayer. Everything is written, yes ? So the purpose of prayer is to change God's mind ?

Prayer is a multi-faceted experience. It can be a meditative exercise or an emotional outpouring, both or neither. As a Jew, prayer re-establishes the connection I have with the Creator, not about changing the mind of G-d.. That the words are written allows me to focus on the connection. Of course, this is one of those non-quantifiable things. Moreover, I would not try to persuade anyone of its validity.

[analog kid]

Great post Avi. Here is my immediate reaction:

this is bullshit. "no-one's going to punish me so it's ok to be an asshole"? wrong. it's still not ok to be an asshole. stop looking for excuses.

Morality isn't exclusive to Christianity. It may be not even be exclusive to humans.

"If all atheists left the USA, it would lose 93% of the National Academy of Sciences but less than 1% of the prison population." -- Scott Hurst

[Avi]

Morality isn't exclusive to Christianity. It may be not even be exclusive to humans.

"If all atheists left the USA, it would lose 93% of the National Academy of Sciences but less than 1% of the prison population." -- Scott Hurst

No one made claims about morality, especially Christian morality, except you. I started this thread because, even though I am known here to be strongly opposed to grandiose, unsupportable claims and to all-encompassing paradigms of the universe (see The Debunking Thread), I am not necessarily content, in every way, with that stance.

For example, Thomas Aquinas, whose Summa Theologica addresses (in great detail) 10,000 philosophical questions and stands today as a stunning work of intellect, had an ecstatic experience during a feast. Afterwards, he said, "Everything I wrote is straw." Wow. Who could not envy such an experience, even if there is no material, scientific, measurable aspect to it?

I, for one, do not think materialism holds the answer to everything, although I am quite content to apply it to material questions. Your quotation also supports a bit of bigotry (presupposing it is even true. Evidence, please?): smart people are atheists, but criminals and the stupid believe in a Creator. Sure, I know you wouldn't recognize it as bigotry (only as justified superiority), but there are many confounding variables in this statement to which you did not stipulate. How is it costly for members of the Academy of Sciences to admit religious belief? How does it benefit prisoners to claim religious belief? Yeah, not as black and white as it seems.

Of course, perhaps we could benefit from a re-enchantment of the universe. Maybe it would help us to apply the Precautionary Principle. Maybe it would help us to resist the urge to dominate and control everything. I don't have the answers, but I am not content with being a mere skeptic for skepticism's sake. As I wrote to stevesh, I think the urge to dominate and to control is very powerful in our species, and very dangerous, especially in its materialist/reductionist guises.

 

[BobGrau]

While musing over a cigarette in the garden today I stumbled across a metaphor or perhaps analogy -
the type of 'radical' skepticism that pisses me off is equivalent to ignoring the information from one's peripheral vision. A lot of it is vague and distorted, but the eternal cat/bird war I watch every day would be a lot shorter without it.

did I say cigarette? I think you know what I mean.

[analog kid]

No one made claims about morality, especially Christian morality, except you.

You're right about that, sorry. I've been posting off topic stuff here a lot. I'm a heavy drinker, and sober, I'm pretty mortified by my behavior here. Well wishes to everyone. Thanks for the great conversations.

[Avi]

You're right about that, sorry. I've been posting off topic stuff here a lot. I'm a heavy drinker, and sober, I'm pretty mortified by my behavior here. Well wishes to everyone. Thanks for the great conversations.

I don't understand why you're mortified. You know, you could tell me, "Fuck you, ya douche-bag, you're wrong!" It wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Anyway, I liked your old avatar.

[Silent]

Nonetheless, I see many skeptics and rationalists as invested in the ideas of science and rationality, with little actual understanding of either. They have faith in science and rationality to provide needed answers.

Do you really think that faith in science and faith in religion or god are the same thing?  Maybe in a very narrow sense of the word.  By that usage of the word faith, everything we think we know as fact is really only faith.

[Avi]

Do you really think that faith in science and faith in religion or god are the same thing?  Maybe in a very narrow sense of the word.  By that usage of the word faith, everything we think we know as fact is really only faith.

Yes, I do. Science has many Just-So stories; indeed, levels of scientific inventiveness far surpass the miracles expressed by most religious texts. Many science supporters do not realize this, however, because their understanding of actual science is nil. The mathematical physicist, with whom I work on my acoustics projects, is pretty far out there. G-d would be far easier to rationalize and to quantify than some of his doozies - and he freely admits it. I realize the word "faith" is a supreme irritant to the science-believers, only because they know not of which they speak. Reading Hitchens, Hawking, Harris, Dawkins or Dennet does not give one practical understanding of science at all - only the understanding of the author's polemics.

Nonetheless, facts and data are very important to me, too, but they do not spring, fully formed, from the head of Zeus. Facts have context, from which they cannot be separated. Indeed, when I discuss acoustics, I must rely on mathematical constructs which are accepted, but which function beyond our ken. Concepts like gravity, for example. Yes, I know gravity is there, but there is no all-encompassing explanation for it or for many over-arching concepts. Professional skeptics, with the possible exception of Hawking (who amazingly ties mathematics into a pretzel and holds it hostage to avoid confronting the dreaded s-s-s-singularity), do not understand, or do not admit, this. It's ok by me.

Again, I am of a highly skeptical persuasion, but I am not entirely happy with this stance. There must be a place to discuss what we mean by knowledge and wisdom (which leave facts, as such, way down on the totem pole). Are facts ingredients (or bytes?), while knowledge is a recipe (or a program?)? How do we derive wisdom from these, or can we? We can construe the answers as a silly science vs. religion debate, but I, for one, am not satisfied with that. The ultimate meaning of facts, or data, or what have you, is the Grand Quest - but we have yet to grasp knowledge, understanding and wisdom in their essences (interestingly, the Ari [Rabbi Isaac Luria] calls all of these a part of the top tier of the Tree of Life. I wonder how he envisioned it. From beauty?). I know it sounds as though I want to invite Philosophers to the Physics Party (such a no-no!), but I get off on cross-fertilization. I suppose I'm in the hybrid vigor camp.

[Silent]

Yes, I do. Science has many Just-So stories; indeed, levels of scientific inventiveness far surpass the miracles expressed by most religious texts. Many science supporters do not realize this, however, because their understanding of actual science is nil. The mathematical physicist, with whom I work on my acoustics projects, is pretty far out there. G-d would be far easier to rationalize and to quantify than some of his doozies - and he freely admits it. I realize the word "faith" is a supreme irritant to the science-believers, only because they know not of which they speak. Reading Hitchens, Hawking, Harris, Dawkins or Dennet does not give one practical understanding of science at all - only the understanding of the author's polemics.

Nonetheless, facts and data are very important to me, too, but they do not spring, fully formed, from the head of Zeus. Facts have context, from which they cannot be separated. Indeed, when I discuss acoustics, I must rely on mathematical constructs which are accepted, but which function beyond our ken. Concepts like gravity, for example. Yes, I know gravity is there, but there is no all-encompassing explanation for it or for many over-arching concepts. Professional skeptics, with the possible exception of Hawking (who amazingly ties mathematics into a pretzel and holds it hostage to avoid confronting the dreaded s-s-s-singularity), do not understand, or do not admit, this. It's ok by me.

Again, I am of a highly skeptical persuasion, but I am not entirely happy with this stance. There must be a place to discuss what we mean by knowledge and wisdom (which leave facts, as such, way down on the totem pole). Are facts ingredients (or bytes?), while knowledge is a recipe (or a program?)? How do we derive wisdom from these, or can we? We can construe the answers as a silly science vs. religion debate, but I, for one, am not satisfied with that. The ultimate meaning of facts, or data, or what have you, is the Grand Quest - but we have yet to grasp knowledge, understanding and wisdom in their essences (interestingly, the Ari [Rabbi Isaac Luria] calls all of these a part of the top tier of the Tree of Life. I wonder how he envisioned it. From beauty?). I know it sounds as though I want to invite Philosophers to the Physics Party (such a no-no!), but I get off on cross-fertilization. I suppose I'm in the hybrid vigor camp.

I've rarely seen so much bullshit in one post.

[Silent]

To give a more serious response, since you did answer my question and deserve an acknowledgment:  I think you are seeking religous and philosophical enlightenment through science which is not what science sets out to do.  You know this.  To hold science accountable for things they do not aim for is not fair.  The same can be said in reverse.

[b_dubb]

I've rarely seen so much bullshit in one post.

you might not agree with what Avi puts forward but to respond like this (see quote) is to do both you and Avi an insult


i keep hearing Art ( in the various streams of his old shows ) talk about proof.  prove this.  prove that.  this is prove.  this doesn't prove that.  science relies on inductive reasoning.  there is no proof in science.  there is evidence.  things can be true.  nothing is absolute

[Frys Girl]

This thread makes alejandro's thread look great.

[b_dubb]

Do you really think that faith in science and faith in religion or god are the same thing?  Maybe in a very narrow sense of the word.  By that usage of the word faith, everything we think we know as fact is really only faith.

religion and science are both belief systems.  at some level you have to BELIEVE that the scientific method works.  where religion and faith part ways is that with science you have to have evidence. without evidence you cannot put forward a theory - at least not seriously.  so science relies on observable evidence.  whereas religion relies exclusively on faith.  you want to believe so you do.  you might experience something that seems too fantastic to be anything but divine influence.  the scientist would like at something like that as anomalous event with a surprising outcome. 

[heater]

I'm highly skeptical of this thread.




The highlight:  you said "Alejandro's thread"...hehehe

[Avi]

I've rarely seen so much bullshit in one post.

How kind of you to say so.

[Avi]

To give a more serious response, since you did answer my question and deserve an acknowledgment:  I think you are seeking religous and philosophical enlightenment through science which is not what science sets out to do.  You know this.  To hold science accountable for things they do not aim for is not fair.  The same can be said in reverse.

I do not see where you get this idea. Quite simply, I do not believe religion is scientifically verifiable. My scientific research, on the other hand, is. Science is a tool, nothing more, but it is not without its issues. Nowhere do I say I don't find it useful or meaningful. Have you read nothing else I've written on this forum (The Debunking Thread or the Time Traveler of Yore)? Apparently not. Just because I critique some aspects of science in action in the real, imperfect world, does not mean I can't appreciate its glories. Did I not say that my outlook is almost entirely skeptical? Why yes, I believe I did. At least read what I've written before you come bearing cudgels. You are making an argument against an entirely imaginary opponent.

[Avi]

I'm highly skeptical of this thread.

Yeah, me too. Fuck it!

[heater]

Yeah, me too. Fuck it!

we should get drunk instead.

[Scully]

... Prayer is a multi-faceted experience. It can be a meditative exercise or an emotional outpouring, both or neither. As a Jew, prayer re-establishes the connection I have with the Creator, not about changing the mind of G-d.. That the words are written allows me to focus on the connection. Of course, this is one of those non-quantifiable things. Moreover, I would not try to persuade anyone of its validity.

And as a Christian, I join you on this with my favorite quote from C.S. Lewis:


"I pray because I can't help myself.  I pray because I'm helpless.  I pray because the need flows out of me all the time -- waking and sleeping.  It doesn't change God -- it changes me."

[Avi]

And as a Christian, I join you on this with my favorite quote from C.S. Lewis:
"I pray because I can't help myself.  I pray because I'm helpless.  I pray because the need flows out of me all the time -- waking and sleeping.  It doesn't change God -- it changes me."

Scully, thanks! You are always too nice to me. Lewis was another Irishman whom the English always claim as their own. I've not read him in ages, but you've inspired me to look at him anew. Thanks!

[KellenTS]

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."  Before you can apply that phrase you have to understand what constitutes the difference between a claim and and an observation.  Both of these terms have very specific definitions and contexts inside the scientific method.  "I tracked a craft moving at mach 8 on my SPS-46 radar" is an observation.  It may not mean anything at all, it just is.  It is noteworthy and should be tracked.  "Most of these sightings are from hypnopompic hallucinations." on the other hand is a claim.  It must be backed with a contextual and analytically broad footprint of supporting evidence, predictive and falsification testing.  To arrogantly whip it off like a one liner is pseudoscience.

Sadly our fake skeptics reverse the two, and think observations are to be filtered out because they do not have "proof" and claims are to be taken at face value without any application of the scientific method at all (so long as THEY introduce them).

Fortunately in real science, industry and patenting, we treat these two entities correctly, or the whole of our industrial complex would crash down like a house of cards.

[MV/Liberace!]

the title of this thread makes me angry.

[BobGrau]

I miss Avi 

[The General]

I miss Avi 

^^^^the post Avi's been waiting for!^^^^

[MV/Liberace!]

^^^^the post Avi's been waiting for!^^^^

DING DING DING!!!