tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post8961326728655993534..comments2024-01-10T17:36:15.040-07:00Comments on The Lippard Blog: A few comments on the nature and scope of skepticismLippardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-21871889277242705292010-02-01T13:24:26.972-07:002010-02-01T13:24:26.972-07:00Keven: Here's someone being rude by refusing ...Keven: Here's someone being rude by refusing to accept ordinary assertions:<br /><br />Me: The other day, I was driving home and ...<br /><br />Jerk: You can drive? Do you even have a car?<br /><br />Me: Yes, I've been driving since I was 16. As I was saying, I was driving home and I saw a billboard for a product that was hilariously bad ...<br /><br />Jerk: I don't believe it. Where would you have seen a billboard? And you still haven't proven that you can drive.<br /><br />Me: Look, here's my driver's license, and that's my car right out there in the parking lot. How about letting me finish my story?<br /><br /><br />Note that it's not the lack of acceptance that's rude, it's the expression of rejection in the given context.<br /><br />I would also define "denial" somewhat broader than you in that it doesn't have to involve conscious deception. One can be in denial by a process of self-deception that involves refusing to treat evidence with comparable standards, effectively having blinders by following confirmation bias and not seeking disconfirming sources, etc.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-90685267588742125622010-01-30T14:06:05.622-07:002010-01-30T14:06:05.622-07:00I'm prepared to accept anyone being skeptical,...I'm prepared to accept anyone being skeptical, so long as they don't insult me for my beliefs. As to people denial, I'd have to prove that the person knows that what they believe in is untrue, but is trying to convince themselves otherwise. I'd have to assume someone was innocent of such behavior until proven guilty. So I don't see any practical problem with accepting skepticism. Perhaps you can give me an example where a person declining to share one of your beliefs would necessarily be rude, and then I'll reconsider.Kevan Hashemihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-83568006638761821162010-01-29T14:21:06.794-07:002010-01-29T14:21:06.794-07:00That's probably too strong for a general rule ...That's probably too strong for a general rule (depending on what you mean by "punish"), since skepticism can indicate an insulting lack of trust or be unwarranted in the face of overwhelming evidence (like the kid who keeps asking "why?" just to be annoying). It's appropriate to treat certain expressions of skepticism as rudeness, denial, specious reasoning, etc.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-21069636165373383442010-01-23T21:20:20.051-07:002010-01-23T21:20:20.051-07:00Well, how about we say that we will never punish a...Well, how about we say that we will never punish anyone for being skeptical?Kevan Hashemihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-34270034520420570622010-01-22T10:57:24.531-07:002010-01-22T10:57:24.531-07:00Keven: I'm afraid I don't have a rule to s...Keven: I'm afraid I don't have a rule to suggest. Each of us has competing values and preferences on a day-to-day basis, some of which include getting along with other people who have different views, behaving ethically, and (at least for most of us) not being an arrogant ass--so even if we're *being* skeptical, we may not *express* that skepticism at all times. There are also forms of social activity which don't involve intellectual commitments, where skepticism may not be valuable (e.g., enjoying a work of fiction).Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-68211846437246563432010-01-18T20:54:50.301-07:002010-01-18T20:54:50.301-07:00Jim, I did look at the book Grue about ten years a...Jim, I did look at the book Grue about ten years ago (or so it seems). I did not see any solutions that appealed to me, although I enjoyed looking at them. You will find my solution <a href="http://www.hashemifamily.com/Kevan/Philosophy/RSCP.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Please note that I did not come to your site to peddle my ideas, but rather to understand yours.<br /><br />When I read your essay, I was looking for you to describe a rule you might use to determine when it's okay not to be skeptical, or the converse. (I apologize if I missed your point.) I want to better understand people who accept some things on faith, and yet who also show ample skepticism on other subjects. I know, for example, a high energy physicist who believes the world is only five thousand years old. Can you propose a system for selecting subjects about which we will be skeptical, on a day-to-day basis? I have no answer to that question myself, other than "always be skeptical", which is, as you know, rather tiring.Kevan Hashemihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-16172784005410896132010-01-18T11:22:24.473-07:002010-01-18T11:22:24.473-07:00Keven: Got any pointers to your solution? Have yo...Keven: Got any pointers to your solution? Have you read Stalnaker's book, _Grue_?<br /><br />I think the different versions of methodology are not merely subjective fashions, but applicable to different fields and questions.<br /><br />"If I understand you correctly, you are saying that we can put on our skeptical hat and talk about gravity, and then take it off again and talk about religion, and there's nothing wrong with that." That's not quite what I had in mind, though I agree that we can do that and there's not *necessarily* anything wrong with it (at least, if we're just talking, as opposed to, say, making public policy). Rather, I see "scientific skepticism" as having a somewhat restricted scope. Although I favor the "naturalistic turn" in philosophy, it seems to me there's always a residue of philosophy that doesn't end up as subject matter of science (though even that residual philosophy should be informed by science). And, even given the broader notion of skepticism that includes doing philosophy, I think as a simple practical matter we can't subject everything we believe to skeptical evaluation, at least not at the individual level.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-56039390249018325222010-01-16T21:00:32.473-07:002010-01-16T21:00:32.473-07:00Jim: I like your idea that there are different ver...Jim: I like your idea that there are different versions of scientific method. That would put us on a level with people of different religions, each confident in their own, but respectful of the others in debate.<br /><br />I don't like any existing solutions to the New Riddle of Induction, other than my own, which have enjoyed for the past thirteen years. I looked at the one you pointed to (thank you for that), and I'd say it begs the question. Who is to judge what is a contrived circumstance? And the real contention about what's scientific and what's not would be hard to address with that solution. For example, it scientific to fit a twenty-parameter model to sixteen data points, and say your model is a valid scientific theorem? If not, why not?<br /><br />I'm interested in your suggestion that a skeptic need not be an atheist. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that we can put on our skeptical hat and talk about gravity, and then take it off again and talk about religion, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm inclined to agree with you.<br /><br />Unless, of course, we apply skepticism to the idea that we will benefit from taking off our skeptical hat. And at that point, the trouble starts.Kevan Hashemihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-39574976383783777282010-01-16T11:01:50.452-07:002010-01-16T11:01:50.452-07:00Keven: I think that "method" has to be ...Keven: I think that "method" has to be pluralistic rather than singular--there is no single universal scientific method.<br /><br />Do you think that there are no solutions to Goodman's "new riddle of induction"? (For that matter, what about Hempel's paradox and Hume's fork?)<br /><br />How about John D. Norton's 2006 _Synthese_ paper (PDF <a href="http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Grue.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>)? He argues that there are asymmetries between "green" and "grue" that can be exploited to account for a difference in projectibility of terms in all but contrived circumstances, and in the contrived circumstances, "green" and "grue" are variant descriptions of the same physical facts with only ineffable differences.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-32130430332075759002010-01-16T10:12:24.091-07:002010-01-16T10:12:24.091-07:00Jim said, "I've found that I better enjoy...Jim said, "I've found that I better enjoy conversations with some believers..." I have had the same experience. I have been doing bible study with my aunt, and enjoying it. But I'm a second-generation atheist. I shared an office with a Christian Fundamentalist, and then a Christian Scientist. I enjoyed many discussions with both. But when it comes to climate science, many people don't control their behavior in the way they would during a debate about religion, and the result is unpleasant. <br /><br />As to definitions of valid "skepticism", I find your definition unsatisfying. For example, "commitment to values as well as what is scientifically testable" rests upon a clear definition of scientific method, as do other similar statements you make. But without a solution for the New Riddle of Induction, any effort to define science is dead on arrival, and so it seems to me that entire argument collapses because it has no solid foundation.Kevan Hashemihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-77062819770521717952010-01-07T11:22:59.447-07:002010-01-07T11:22:59.447-07:00badrescher: I agree.
My personal experience has s...badrescher: I agree.<br /><br />My personal experience has sometimes involved clashes with skeptical organizations and individuals, and I might have considered myself to be outside of the "organized skeptical movement" had it not been for support from leaders of local groups and the rise of competitive national groups like the Skeptics Society and JREF (and now a huge proliferation of them online). I'm rather wary of the possibilities of groupthink and the conversion of a set of output beliefs into "dead dogma" that becomes immune to further application of skeptical methodology--that drives my emphasis of methodology over output, though I think Joel's point shows that I shouldn't push that too far.<br /><br />You mention "sweeping statements about the way people should behave"--I think I'm willing to put more constraints on behavior than I am on belief. I've found that I better enjoy conversations with some believers than with some skeptics or atheists, where the former are open-minded and familiar with the skeptical arguments and know the subject matter in detail, and where the latter are just repeating what they've read or heard from the skeptical or atheist literature. I'd rather be challenged and have an opportunity to learn.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-6839121752190882692010-01-07T10:54:06.674-07:002010-01-07T10:54:06.674-07:00In the literature on the subject of critical think...In the literature on the subject of critical thinking, the most widely accepted definition of "rational" is not purely methodological. It includes holding a set of beliefs which are not inconsistent with knowledge. This definition <em>may</em> not exclude religion, but it certainly excludes belief in Big Foot, telepathy, and homeopathy given that the individual knows that those claims have failed repeated tests.<br /><br />Regardless, what I am more interested in the discussion here is some something less discussed elsewhere, and that is tolerance of diversity in views and approaches. As you've expressed here, we are a community of individuals. The culture of that community forms itself, but it does not do so around the views of an individual unless those views are shared by all. <br /><br />While we may talk about what we wish and hope the movement and the individuals within it would do/be, it is presumptuous to assume that one's opinion about that is "the one <em>true</em> view". <br /><br />Personally, I am turned off by sweeping statements about the way people <em>should</em> behave, whether I agree with the substance of statements or not, when they are framed as dictates rather than opinions. There is a way to criticize things (e.g., voicing irrational views) without pretension: present an argument addressing the specific "offense" in an open forum.badrescherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04719915350370585943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-63037707854712443822010-01-07T10:41:09.594-07:002010-01-07T10:41:09.594-07:00Joel: You're absolutely correct that SBM doesn...Joel: You're absolutely correct that SBM doesn't *remove* the methodology, it just says you need something more.<br /><br />It seems to me that adding prior plausibility to the methodology is essentially the same thing as placing a constraint on inputs on the basis of past outputs.<br /><br />This all gets a lot more complicated when you ask the question of whose inputs and outputs? We really have to look social groups and institutions rather than individuals, since none of us can really get off the ground from a position of Cartesian doubt (or even truly get into such a position, for we still retain conceptual schemes that we've picked up from our initial learning).Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-77028424147754516162010-01-07T09:07:32.079-07:002010-01-07T09:07:32.079-07:00That's not to say that we cannot include prior...That's not to say that we cannot include prior plausibility in the methodology, such as in Michael Shermer's version of the <a href="http://www.michaelshermer.com/2009/06/baloney-detection-kit/" rel="nofollow">Baloney Detection Kit</a>.<br /><br />I don't think think that science-based medicine necessarily removes the notion a methodology, but it does (reasonably) criticise EBM as not taking all the inputs into account. You can apply the same sort of Bayes' theorem-informed thinking to skepticism as in SBM. The JREF million-dollar challenge, for example, the final test uses a strong p-value - obviously if you're going to test a whole bunch of people with a whole bunch of various implausible claims, you don't want 5% of your applicants walking away with a large check.<br /><br />(I'm Jivlain from above, btw, I've modified my Blogger profile between posts)Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01346390107297363464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-49645854644616784622010-01-07T07:43:24.619-07:002010-01-07T07:43:24.619-07:00Jivlain: That's sort of the direction I favor...Jivlain: That's sort of the direction I favor for skepticism, but I can't entirely dispose of the "as a product" sense of the term for skepticism or science. That's because I have to agree with Stephen Jay Gould, in <a href="http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/gould.html" rel="nofollow">"Evolution as Fact and Theory,"</a> that "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."<br /><br />The <a href="http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/07/science-based-medicine-conference-part_9316.html" rel="nofollow">critique that Steven Novella and Kimball Atwood have made of evidence-based medicine</a> for trying to be purely methodological, with no constraints on prior plausibility for inputs to the process, is a good one--and one which directly addresses your example of homeopathy.<br /><br />In philosophy of science, I think Thomas Nickles has had a lot to say about inputs to the scientific process in the form of using prior work to generate new hypotheses.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-86781930929234328392010-01-07T06:57:07.557-07:002010-01-07T06:57:07.557-07:00Does skepticism imply a-homeopathism? Well, no! Sk...Does skepticism imply a-homeopathism? Well, no! Skepticism gives me a methodology for thinking about homeopathy, not an answer to its truth or falsity.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01346390107297363464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-57355419590295702602010-01-07T06:55:52.046-07:002010-01-07T06:55:52.046-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01346390107297363464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-86044353423953678812010-01-07T00:47:21.356-07:002010-01-07T00:47:21.356-07:00Well said.Well said.badrescherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04719915350370585943noreply@blogger.com