Skepticism

[quatona]

Dear Received,
so you are advocating "being skeptical about skepticism".
I congratulate you on your choice of the tool skepticism. Even more so, since this choice is completely in line with what your threads and posts have always been telling me: skepticism is your preferred tool. You are demanding evidence for truth claims, you are demanding support for them, you are demanding substantion, logical soundness, consistency, non-contradiction etc. That´s what skepticism is about, and apart from the fact that you profess to be a skeptic (see above), you are demonstrating great confidence in skepticism. You walk the way you talk, as a skepticist.

Now, the fact that for scrutinizing the validity of skepticism you choose the very tool the validity of which you are about to scrutinize is - at least in the way you put it - makes it look like you are tangled in a self-contradiction.

But, alas, that´s only because you were a bit careless in the choice of your words. Actually, you aren´t skeptical of skepticism. You rely on it, and your general approach rests squarely on it.

Fortunately, you went on to explain that when saying you are being skeptical about skepticism, you mean that you are concerned with some people expecting too much from skepticism (i.e. proclaiming it as and/or using it as a tool for what it has never been intended for - e.g. being "the panacea to life"). Also, you explained that you are concerned with the fact that some parameters in skepticism may not yet be sufficiently or conclusively defined (e.g. What counts as evidence? What are and what aren´t the fields in which skepticism is the appropriate tool, and how do we determine which is which? etc.). What you are expressing here is not skepticism towards skepticism, but a concern with its proper use.

You have met a guy who told you that skepticism is "the panacea to life".
You have met a guy who told you that skepticism suggests itself as the appropriate approach to "all things".
You have a strong feeling that these guys are misapplying the very tool you hold in high regards, and I agree with you.
By pointing out when, where and how people propose skepticism as a tool that it´s not intended to be, you are doing skepticism a great service. Thank you for that.

Skepticism, just like mathematics or dentistry, isn´t meant to be the "panacea to life" nor the appropriate approach to "all things". Being concerned with further improving the materials used in dentistry, being concerned with making sure that mathematics isn´t used as an approach towards stuff that isn´t its field, doesn´t mean you are "skeptical" towards dentistry or mathematics; you are skeptical (even more - you are downright opposed to poor use, misuse or abuse of these approaches you actually hold in high regards). You aren´t the skeptic towards dentistry or mathematics, you are their keeper. Same with skepticism.

 

[Received]

The problem is: I have no working definition of "skeptical" in mind that would render "being skeptical of skepticism" meaningful if applying it consistently to both terms that refer to it in this phrase. That has been my question to you since my very first post (#11). I don´t think you dignified it with a response.

I did in my last response: being skeptical of skepticism means holding our "suspension method in suspension." Still, you're engaging in conversation, which means by definition that you have some type of working definition or else you wouldn't be engaging in conversation.

Ok, so let´s work from that definition you have picked from Wikipedia. It talks about "information". That´s the frame of reference. Since skepticism - according to this definition - doesn´t provide any information (no factual claims about reality) but merely is an overall attitude skepticism itself doesn´t fall in the category that it addresses.
Thus, imposing it on itself is impossible.

Now I totally get where you're coming from. Information is one thing, a method is another. For one, I'm cautious against considering evidence as "factual claims about reality." There's no reason why "information" can't be something along the lines of, e.g., "knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance." IOW, your definition is too restrictive.

Let's stop there for now since so much pivots on this definition.

 

[Received]

Dear Received,
so you are advocating "being skeptical about skepticism".
I congratulate you on your choice of the tool skepticism. Even more so, since this choice is completely in line with what your threads and posts have always been telling me: skepticism is your preferred tool. You are demanding evidence for truth claims, you are demanding support for them, you are demanding substantion, logical soundness, consistency, non-contradiction etc. That´s what skepticism is about, and apart from the fact that you profess to be a skeptic (see above), you are demonstrating great confidence in skepticism. You walk the way you talk, as a skepticist.

Now, the fact that for scrutinizing the validity of skepticism you choose the very tool the validity of which you are about to scrutinize is - at least in the way you put it - makes it look like you are tangled in a self-contradiction.

But, alas, that´s only because you were a bit careless in the choice of your words. Actually, you aren´t skeptical of skepticism. You rely on it, and your general approach rests squarely on it.

Fortunately, you went on to explain that when saying you are being skeptical about skepticism, you mean that you are concerned with some people expecting too much from skepticism (i.e. proclaiming it as and/or using it as a tool for what it has never been intended for - e.g. being "the panacea to life"). Also, you explained that you are concerned with the fact that some parameters in skepticism may not yet be sufficiently or conclusively defined (e.g. What counts as evidence? What are and what aren´t the fields in which skepticism is the appropriate tool, and how do we determine which is which? etc.). What you are expressing here is not skepticism towards skepticism, but a concern with its proper use.

You have met a guy who told you that skepticism is "the panacea to life".
You have met a guy who told you that skepticism suggests itself as the appropriate approach to "all things".
You have a strong feeling that these guys are misapplying the very tool you hold in high regards, and I agree with you.
By pointing out when, where and how people propose skepticism as a tool that it´s not intended to be, you are doing skepticism a great service. Thank you for that.

Skepticism, just like mathematics or dentistry, isn´t meant to be the "panacea to life" nor the appropriate approach to "all things". Being concerned with further improving the materials used in dentistry, being concerned with making sure that mathematics isn´t used as an approach towards stuff that isn´t its field, doesn´t mean you are "skeptical" towards dentistry or mathematics; you are skeptical (even more - you are downright opposed to poor use, misuse or abuse of these approaches you actually hold in high regards). You aren´t the skeptic towards dentistry or mathematics, you are their keeper. Same with skepticism.

Please don't think that little section on the panacea is meant literally or applies to even anyone on this thread. There has to be a term (quatonafied?) where a person critiques a perspective as obviously wrong but the argument isn't really meant to reveal anything to him given that he's already thinking correctly.

As for skepticism, I like it, it's nice.

 

[Ken-1122]

1)
But wait. Lots of people reasonably say that skepticism can't mean holding all things in suspension, but only certain things. That then opens up the problem of a line between when to suspend and not to suspend, and so far Ken has unveiled to me that this line is basically separated by feelings.

I know you were responding to someone else but I feel a need to clear up your obvious misunderstanding. I did not say skeptism is about feelings, I said when a skeptic becomes convinced of a claim, he is no longer a skeptic, but a believer of that claim.

Ken

 

[Received]

I know you were responding to someone else but I feel a need to clear up your obvious misunderstanding. I did not say skeptism is about feelings, I said when a skeptic becomes convinced of a claim, he is no longer a skeptic, but a believer of that claim.

Ken

So it's possible for there to be two skeptics considering the same degree of reasoning or evidence, of which one skeptic continues in his skepticism because he isn't convinced, whereas another is convinced and so gives up his skepticism?

 

[Ken-1122]

So it's possible for there to be two skeptics considering the same degree of reasoning or evidence, of which one skeptic continues in his skepticism because he isn't convinced, whereas another is convinced and so gives up his skepticism?

Of course! Just because people are skeptical doesn't mean they will agree on everything

K

 

[bhsmte]

So it's possible for there to be two skeptics considering the same degree of reasoning or evidence, of which one skeptic continues in his skepticism because he isn't convinced, whereas another is convinced and so gives up his skepticism?

Is there any reason to believe skeptical person A, is going to have the same level of skepticism (personal burden of proof) as skeptical person B?

 

[Received]

And if there is a difference between two skeptics although there is the same bit of evidence and reasoning presented to them, then what is the difference with the two skeptics for one to believe and another not to?

 

[Received]

Is there any reason to believe skeptical person A, is going to have the same level of skepticism (personal burden of proof) as skeptical person B?

So is a burden of proof ultimately personal?

Think about what that means.

 

[bhsmte]

So is a burden of proof ultimately personal?

Think about what that means.

You never answered my question from post 90.

For yourself personally, what needs to happen for you to no longer be skeptical of a claim?

Would you expect every person require the exact same things to happen to no longer be skeptical of a claim?

So, when are people usually skeptical? I would think when someone makes a claim that goes against something they currently believe to be true, which goes against what someone else is claiming. There could be a lot of objectivity in this skepticism or the skepticism could be quite bias.

As an example, I was talking about dogs with someone several weeks ago and I made the comment, that dogs mouths were actually cleaner than a humans mouth. The person disagreed with me and said my claim was not true and I was very skeptical. My skepticism came from what I had heard over the years and I thought it to be true, but I really didn't have any firm evidence to believe what I did, but I still thought I was right. Well, after doing some research to several sources (because the first one was not enough, because I was skeptical) I came to the conclusion that I was wrong and my skepticism went away completely and I accepted the evidence that I researched.

So people have their own individual burden of proof, based on their individual bias (which we all have) and based on their ability to be objective. Some are bias to the point of refuting boatloads of objective evidence and others will eventually accept objective evidence. Why? Because of psychological need for those with an abnormal level of bias, to protect a belief they have, that goes against the objective evidence.

We see examples of the above on this board everyday and I must say, it is entertaining to observe, from a human behavior standpoint.

 

[quatona]

I did in my last response: being skeptical of skepticism means holding our "suspension method in suspension." Still, you're engaging in conversation, which means by definition that you have some type of working definition or else you wouldn't be engaging in conversation.

As I said, I do have a working definition - a working definition that doesn´t cause the problems you are pointing out, and that doesn´t lead to the self-contradiction that you are creating for yourself.

IOW I have a working definition that works.

Now I totally get where you're coming from. Information is one thing, a method is another. For one, I'm cautious against considering evidence as "factual claims about reality." There's no reason why "information" can't be something along the lines of, e.g., "knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance." IOW, your definition is too restrictive.

Yes, there is a reason to assume that this is not what´s meant here: because if that were what´s meant it would lead to all this nonsense we are discussing here.
You were asking for a clear distinction between the fields where skepticism suggests iself as a useful method and where it doesn´t. I gave one to you, and it´s well supportable by your definition from Wikipedia.
Now, of course, if you try hard you can always find a definition of "information" that reintroduces the problems that you seem to be so eager to hold against skepticism.

Anyway, you have my answer: The subject of skepticism are factual truth claims about first level reality.

If that makes too much sense and if it removes the problems you would like to have, it´s your prerogative to look for an answer that doesn´t make sense.

 

[quatona]

And if there is a difference between two skeptics although there is the same bit of evidence and reasoning presented to them, then what is the difference with the two skeptics for one to believe and another not to?

I´m not sure where you see the problem with the advice "don´t accept any factual claims until you have sufficient evidence that´s convincing to you" - even if the amount and/or nature of evidence required are individually different.
That´s still good advice, and I don´t even dare to imagine what you might propose for an alternative approach.

 

[Ken-1122]

And if there is a difference between two skeptics although there is the same bit of evidence and reasoning presented to them, then what is the difference with the two skeptics for one to believe and another not to?

As I said before, everybody has a level of skeptism within them; some more than others.

Ken

 

[bhsmte]

As I said before, everybody has a level of skeptism within them; some more than others.

Ken

I agree and don't quite understand why this is so difficult for the OP to comprehend. It's as though, there is an expectation that everyone should have the exact same standard of evidence, to remove any skepticism they may have. If we were all programmed robots, then that could be accomplished, but it is impossible, with the nature of the human psyche.

 

[Received]

Yes, there is a reason to assume that this is not what´s meant here: because if that were what´s meant it would lead to all this nonsense we are discussing here.

A reason to believe that what isn't meant where?

 

[bhsmte]

So is a burden of proof ultimately personal?

Think about what that means.

Think about what it would mean if every person had the exact same burden of proof for every claim made and they also interpreted evidence in the exact same way.

 

[KCfromNC]

So is a burden of proof ultimately personal?

Think about what that means.

It means that people are imperfect. Luckily we have systems in place for establishing fact which takes this (and other) limits into account. Too bad not everyone uses them consistently when their pet beliefs are threatened - refer back to my 1st sentence for more details.

 

[quatona]

A reason to believe that what isn't meant where?

What´s meant by "skepticism" in general, and in particular in the Wiki-definition you have provided.

 

[Received]

Yes, there is a reason to assume that this is not what´s meant here: because if that were what´s meant it would lead to all this nonsense we are discussing here.

You were asking for a clear distinction between the fields where skepticism suggests iself as a useful method and where it doesn´t. I gave one to you, and it´s well supportable by your definition from Wikipedia.
Now, of course, if you try hard you can always find a definition of "information" that reintroduces the problems that you seem to be so eager to hold against skepticism.

Anyway, you have my answer: The subject of skepticism are factual truth claims about first level reality.

If that makes too much sense and if it removes the problems you would like to have, it´s your prerogative to look for an answer that doesn´t make sense.

See, the difference here is that you're all for changing definitions against how they're commonly used in order to (productively) make sure there isn't nonsense. You're more for making changes (ethos), and I'm more for noting problematic norms (observation?). I'm for keeping the commonly used definitions and seeing what type of nonsense results. The nonsense that results tells us (garbage in, garbage out fashion) that the definitions are whack.

Thus, skepticism as it's used by at least certain groups of people (and here our psychological observations are clearly different, you believing that people don't prop up skepticism as a panacea, me that people who often tout skepticism often do, and there's no room here but for an impasse given different observations) is nonsense.

OP closed.

 

[bhsmte]

See, the difference here is that you're all for changing definitions against how they're commonly used in order to (productively) make sure there isn't nonsense. You're more for making changes (ethos), and I'm more for noting problematic norms (observation?). I'm for keeping the commonly used definitions and seeing what type of nonsense results. The nonsense that results tells us (garbage in, garbage out fashion) that the definitions are whack.

Thus, skepticism as it's used by at least certain groups of people (and here our psychological observations are clearly different, you believing that people don't prop up skepticism as a panacea, me that people who often tout skepticism often do, and there's no room here but for an impasse given different observations) is nonsense.

OP closed.

Received,

You never answered questions I posted towards you on two occasions, the last time in post 110. You have asked questions of others and to balance the thread, you should respond as well.